Ariyathalaivar Raja, Tirunelveli V. ITO, Tirunelveli

CO 115/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3420 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , !, # !$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1456/MDS/2017 & C.O. NO.115/MDS/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.1456/MDS/2017) ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, TIRUNELVELI. V. SHRI ARIYATHALAIVAR RAJA, 92/7, KURUKKALPATTI, SANKARANKOVIL, TIRUNELVELI DIST. PAN : AOMPR 8774 G (*+/ APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT & CROSS-OBJECTOR) *+ , - / APPELLANT BY : SMT. RUBY GEORGE, CIT ./*+ , - / RESPONDENT BY : NONE 0 , 1# / DATE OF HEARING : 28.12.2017 23( , 1# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.01.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, MADURAI , DATED 29.03.2017 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS-OBJECTION IN RESPECT OF TH E SAME ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 2 I.T.A. NO.1456/MDS/17 C.O. NO.115/MDS/17 2. NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD. THER EFORE, WE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PROCE EDED TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 16 DAYS IN FILING THE CROSS -OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION FO R CONDONATION OF DELAY. WE HAVE PERUSED THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE CROSS-OBJECTION BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE CROSS-OBJECTION. 4. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 5. SMT. RUBY GEORGE, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) SET ASIDE THE REOPE NING OF ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR IS SUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS NOT EXPIRED. A CCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE INCOME-TAX A CT WHICH BARS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT 3 I.T.A. NO.1456/MDS/17 C.O. NO.115/MDS/17 EVEN THOUGH THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS NOT EXPIRED. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEAL S) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. D.R . AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS NOT EXPIRED. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) HAS NOT EXP IRED, CAN THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROU ND THAT THE INCOME OTHERWISE TAXABLE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT? THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN CASE THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED FROM ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN VERY WELL ISS UE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT AND ASSESS THE INCOME WHI CH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO INITIATE REASSE SSMENT PROCEEDING TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. THE PROCEEDIN G UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT CAN BE REOPENED ONLY IN CASE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS COMPLETED OR TERMINATED B Y OPERATION OF LAW. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS NOT EXPIRED, THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION IN ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 4 I.T.A. NO.1456/MDS/17 C.O. NO.115/MDS/17 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND A NY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 7. THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONL Y IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, IT BEC OMES INFRUCTUOUS. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AN D CROSS- OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 5 TH JANUARY, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ) ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 5 TH JANUARY, 2018. KRI. , .167 87(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ./*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 91 () /CIT(A)-3, MADURAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT- 2, MADURAI 5. 7: .1 /DR 6. ' ; /GF.