Mrs. Veena Handa, Agra V. ITO, Agra

CO 22/AGR/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6497 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K SEHGAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A K SHARMA
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 158/AGRA/2009 ASSTT. YEAR : 2000-01 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. SMT. VEENA HANDA, 1(3), AGRA. 126, NEHRU NAGAR, AGRA. (PAN : ABIPH :2711 G) C.O. NO. 22/AGRA/2009 (IN ITA NO. 158/AGRA/2009) ASSTT. YEAR : 2000-01 SMT. VEENA HANDA, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 126, NEHRU NAGAR, AGRA. 1(3), AGRA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI P.K. SEHGAL, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 14.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.10.2011 ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, AM : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJ ECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2009 OF CIT(A)-I, AGRA. 2. THE ONLY DISPUTE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THI S APPEAL IS WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED TO HOLD THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S. 1 47 AS INVALID AND CONSEQUENTIAL RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER AS AN ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED WITHOUT JURISD ICTION. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HER ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 29. 06.2000. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 28.02.2006 U/S. 147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY INCOME-TAX OFFICER 1(3), AGRA 2 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,18,480/-. SUBSEQUE NTLY, ANOTHER NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 23.03.2007 AND THERE BEING NO COMPLIANCE OF THE STATUTORY NOTICE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 147/144 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.14,29,060/- ON 11.12.2007. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 148 ISSUED ON 23.03.2007 WAS ISSUED AFTER OBTAINING THE APPROVAL OF JCIT, RANGE-1, AGRA WHERE AS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151(1) READ WITH PROVISO THERETO, THE APPROVAL OF CCIT/CIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED PRIOR TO ISSUE OF NOTICE AS THE SAID NOTICE WAS ISSUED AFTER EXPIRY O F FOUR YEARS FROM THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. SHASHI KANT GARG VS. CIT, 152 TAXMAN 308. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. SHASHI KANT GARG (SUPRA) HELD THE NOTICE U/S. 148 AS INVALID AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN PURSUANCE THERETO AS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND INVALID. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND WE FIND THAT THE MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. SHASHI KANT GARG (SUPRA), THE HEAD-NOTES WHEREOF READ AS UNDER : WHETHER IF ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OR SECTION 147 AND PROCEEDINGS FOR REASSESSMENT ARE TO BE INIT IATED AFTER PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS, THEN NOTICE CAN BE ISSUED ONLY AFTER CHIEF C OMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, AS THE CASE MAY BE, HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION, AND GIVEN HIS SANCTION FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AS PROVIDED UNDER PROVISO TO SUB -SECTION (1) OF SECTION 151 HELD YES. 4. SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ITAT AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT CIRCLE 1, AGRA VS. SHRI SHYAM BANSAL, AGRA (ITA NO. 80/AGRA/2008 VIDE ORDER DATED 3 13.02.2009 AND BY ITAT AGRA (THIRD MEMBER) IN THE C ASE OF ITO VS. BHAVESH KUMAR, (2011) 59 DTR (AGRA)(TM)(TRIB.) 145 AFTER FOLLOWING THE AFORE SAID DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISI ON OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE ORDERS OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH, THE APPEAL FILED B Y THE REVENUE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 5. AS REGARDS THE CROSS OBJECTION, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THE SAME AND REQUESTED TO TREAT IT TO BE WITHDRAWN. AN ENDOR SEMENT TO THIS EFFECT HAS ALSO BEEN MADE ON THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION. WE, THEREFORE, DISM ISS THE C.O. FILED BY ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE A ND THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.10.2011. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED: 14 TH OCTOBER, 2011 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY