SHRI. A.P ASHOK KUMAR, CHENNAI V. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 10 (1), CHENNAI

CO 120/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5565 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N V BALAJI
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Set aside

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - ./ WTA NOS.53 & 54/CHNY/2018 & C.O. NOS.120 & 121/CHNY/2018 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 10(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. SHRI A.P. ASHOK KUMAR, NO.45, GURUVAPPA STREET, CHINDADRIPET, CHENNAI - 600 002. PAN : AAIPA 9617 R (+,/ APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT & CROSS OBJECTOR) +, - . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT /0+, - . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.V. BALAJI, ADVOCATE 1 - 2$ / DATE OF HEARING : 08.05.2019 3!) - 2$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.05.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE REVENUE FILED THE APPEALS AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX (APPEALS)- 12, CHENNAI, DATED 19.03.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 A ND 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER 2 W.T.A. NOS.53 & 54/CHNY/18 C.O. NOS.120 & 1 21/CHNY/18 OF THE CWT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, WE HEARD THE APPEA LS AND THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS TOGETHER AND DISPOSING THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DELETED C ERTAIN ASSETS FROM THE TOTAL ASSETS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THERE IS A VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. HENCE, THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR RECONSIDERATION. 3. WE HEARD SHRI N.V. BALAJI, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE ALSO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. REFERRI NG TO WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'), MORE PARTICULARLY S ECTION 2(CA) OF THE ACT, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER MEANS THE OFFICER WHO IS VESTED WITH RELEVANT JURISDICTIO N BY VIRTUE OF DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED BY THE CBDT UNDER SECTI ON 120(1)(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT UN DER THE 3 W.T.A. NOS.53 & 54/CHNY/18 C.O. NOS.120 & 1 21/CHNY/18 INCOME-TAX ACT. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS , THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TA X, NON- CORPORATE CIRCLE 10(1), CHENNAI HAS PASSED THE IMPU GNED ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT, WHEREAS, THE INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENT ORDE R WAS PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON- CORPORATE CIRCLE 9(1), CHENNAI. THEREFORE, ACCORDI NG TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND WEALTH-TAX ACT ARE TWO DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES. THE POWER WAS VESTED ON THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 9(1) UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE VERY SAME OFFICER HAS TO FRAME ASSESSMENT UNDER THE WEALTH-TA X ACT ALSO. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO PASS THE ORDER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE C WT(APPEALS). ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE CWT(AP PEALS) DELETED CERTAIN ASSETS FROM THE TOTAL ASSETS. THEREFORE, T HIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS A CLEAR VIOLAT ION OF RULE 46A OF INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS TO 4 W.T.A. NOS.53 & 54/CHNY/18 C.O. NOS.120 & 1 21/CHNY/18 RECONSIDER THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF THE SO-CALLED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CWT(APPEA LS). 5. IN THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THA T THE OFFICER WHO PASSED THE WEALTH-TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NO J URISDICTION TO PASS SUCH AN ORDER. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO COMPLETED THE ASS ESSMENT UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT SHALL COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT UN DER THE WEALTH-TAX ACT ALSO IN VIEW OF SECTION 2(CA) OF THE ACT. THIS ISSUE OF JURISDICTION WAS NOT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE CWT(APPEALS). MORE OVER, THE ISSUE ON MERIT GOES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE JURISDICTION ALSO NEEDS TO BE RECONS IDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE RAISED BY THE RE VENUE IN THE APPEALS AND THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS ARE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE TH E ENTIRE ISSUE INCLUDING JURISDICTION, AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE I SSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5 W.T.A. NOS.53 & 54/CHNY/18 C.O. NOS.120 & 1 21/CHNY/18 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A ND THE CROSS- OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 TH MAY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESA N) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 17 TH MAY, 2019. KRI. - /267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. /0+, /RESPONDENT 3. - 1 92 () /WIT(A)-12, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CWT-3, CHENNAI- 5. 7: /2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.