Sh. Sat Pal Jindal, Panchkula V. ITO, Panchkula

CO 41/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3207 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Tangible material
• Section: 50C; 147; 139

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1124/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 THE ITO, VS. SH. SAT PAL JINDAL, WARD-4, PANCHKULA PANCHKULA PAN NO. AANPP4702B & C.O.NO. 41/CHD/2016 (IN ITA NO. 1124/CHD/2016) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SH. SAT PAL JINDAL, VS. THE ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA PANCHKULA PAN NO. AANPP4702B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SH. ASHWANI KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 12.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.10.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE CORRESPON DING CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], PANCHKULA DATED 07.09.2016 2. THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAS AGITATED THE ACTI ON OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') AS BAD IN LAW AND THEREBY QUASHING THE SAME. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS IN VITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN, REASONS RE CORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED. THE OPENING L INES OF THE SAID REASONS REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPE NED THE ASSESSMENT ON PERUSAL OF RECORDS AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF ANY FRES H INFORMATION OR TANGIBLE MATERIAL COMING INTO HIS POSSESSION TO FORM A BELIE F THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE LD. AR HAS FUR THER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 4.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHEREIN, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDINGS THAT NOTICE FOR RE-ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS AND THEREFORE, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS HIT BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THIS CASE, HAS FORM ED THE BELIEF THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FROM THE DOCUMENTS ALREADY ON RECORD. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE INCOME CHARGE ABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BY A REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART O F THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN U/S 139 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL M ATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REOPENED AFTER EXPIRY OF FO UR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN VIEW OF THIS, T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY 3 HELD THAT THE REOPENING WAS BAD IN LAW BEING HIT B Y THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 4. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE REOPENING OF TH E ASSESSMENT AS BAD IN LAW, HENCE, WE DEEM IT NOT NECESSARY AT THIS STA GE TO GO INTO THE VALIDITY OF THE ADDITIONS MADE ON MERITS AS THE SAME STOOD A UTOMATICALLY DELETED ON THE QUASHMENT OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 5. NOW COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN QUASHING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BEING BAD IN LAW, THE C ONSEQUENTIAL ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE NO LEGS TO STAND . IN VIEW OF THIS, THE CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CRO SS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.10.2017 SD/- SD/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 16.10.2017 RKK 4 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR