Prem Vashisht, Panchkula V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 101/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80928 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: HARY RIKHY
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Assessment record; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 101/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998-99 SMT. PREM VASHISHT, V THE DCIT, PROP. M/S KALYAN SALES CORPORATION, INV. CIRCLE 1 HOUSE NO. 928-A, CHANDIGARH. SECTOR 2, PANCHKULA. PAN: AAYPV9551F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARY RIKHY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 08.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.10.2014 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CHANDIGARH DATED 04.11.2013 FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED IN THE I MPUGNED ORDER ARE THAT THE ORIGINAL APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 17.03.2003. THE ASSESSE E PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH CHAL LENGING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE TRIBUNAL THAT ASSESSE E FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.1998 AND THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS RECEIVED BY HER ON 09.02.2001. THE ASSE SSEE 2 ARGUED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT ISSUE OF LIMITATION WAS RAISED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE LETTER WRITTEN BEFORE THE AUTHORITY BELOW AND WAS ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL. IT WAS CLAIMED IN THIS LETTER THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 143(2) WAS SERVED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE RETURN WAS FILED AND SO, NO PROC EEDINGS FOR FRAMING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) COULD H AVE BEEN LEGALLY INITIATED. THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, RESTORED THE ISSUE TO T HE FILE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 21.07.2006 IN ITA NO. 246 OF 2001 AND THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE REPRODUCE D IN IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), IN VIEW OF TH E DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, TAKEN UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF THE NO TICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE'S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ARE REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) HAS BEEN SERVED UPON ASSESSEE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION BECAU SE IT WAS SERVED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 09.02.2001. THE LD. C IT(APPEALS) EXAMINED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND SUBMISSION OF TH E ASSESSEE IN DETAIL AND DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) HAS BEEN ISSUED AND SERVED UPON ASSESSEE WITHIN THE PERIOD O F LIMITATION. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WA S DISMISSED ON THIS GROUND. THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) I N PARA 3 TO 4 3 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE APPELLANT. AT THE OUTSET, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD TAKEN UP A GROUND IN THE MEMORANDUM O F APPEAL [OF ORIGINAL APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CI T(A)|, CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE/S 143(2), BUT AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF APPEAL, THIS GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE APPELLANT AND SO THIS GROUND WAS REJ ECTED WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 'THROUGH THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2). DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRESSED THIS GROUND. IF AT ALL THIS ISSUE HAS TO BE RAISED, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED FIRST DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSTT. PROCEEDINGS. IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE ASSTT ORDER THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME WHEN ASSTT PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN UP. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ACCOUNT.' 3.1 THE APPELLANT HAD CONTENDED BEFORE THE ITAT THA T THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS SERVED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 09.02.2001, AS IS CLEAR FROM THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF THE ITAT ORDER: 'ADMITTEDLY THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ON 09.02.2001' 3.2 I CALLED FOR THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE APPELLANT. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, I FIND THAT THIS CONTENTION OF THE AP PELLANT, WHICH WAS CANVASSED BEFORE THE ITAT, IS NOT CORRECT . THE ASSESSMENT RECORD OF THE YEAR IN QUESTION IS PA GE NUMBERED AND OFFICE COPY OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 30.09.1999 IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 30 OF THE ASSESSMEN T RECORD. THIS NOTICE WAS ISSUED AFTER OBTAINING APP ROVAL OF THE JCIT, RANGE-1 ON 30.09.1999 AND MUST HAVE BE EN SERVED WITHIN 4-5 DAYS OF ITS ISSUE AND SO IT MUST HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN SERVED BY 05.10.1999 I.E. MUCH BEFOR E 31.10.1999; THE LIMITATION DATE OF FOR ISSUE OF NOT ICE UNDER SECTION 143(2). IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED THAT ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAD BEEN ISSUED ON 25.01.2001, OFFICE COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PA GE NO. 31 OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. IT APPEARS THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT COMPLY WITH EITHER OF THESE NOTIC ES. NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ON 09.02.2001, AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE ITAT. IN FACT, AS PER THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, A NOTICE DAT ED 09.02.2001 ISSUED U/S 142(1) WAS SERVED ON THE SAME 4 DATE ON SH. CHAMAN LAI SHARMA, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ENCLOSED A QUESTIONNAIRE ALONGWITH THE SAID NOTICE U/S 142(1), WHICH WAS DULY REPLIED TO BY THE APPELLANT VIDE LET TER DATED 15.02.2001. THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 36 TO 71 OF THE ASSESSMENT RECOR D. IN THIS REPLY, THERE IS NOT EVEN A WHISPER REGARDI NG THE CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THE RE-IS NO LETTER DATED 16.02.2001 FROM THE APPELLANT ON RECOR D. EVEN IN THE ORDER SHEET, THERE IS AN ENTRY OF 16.02 .2001 OF APPEARANCE BY THE LD. COUNSEL, BUT HE HAD TAKEN ADJOURNMENT ON THAT DATE AND THIS LETTER DATED 16.0 2 2001 WAS NOT FILED ON THAT DATE. AS PER THE ORDE R SHEET ENTRY, THE REPLY (DATED 15.02.2001) WAS FILED ON NE XT DATE OF HEARING I.E. 23.02.2001. 3.3 IT IS CLEAR THAT NO OBJECTION TO THE PROCEE DINGS WAS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE DETAILED REPLY DATED 15.02.2001, WHICH WAS FILED ON 23.02.2001. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDER SHEET THAT WHILE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT DID APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N 16.02.2001, BUT ONLY TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT AND DID NO T FILE ANY LETTER ON THAT DAY. THEREFORE POINT IS- WH EN WAS THE LETTER DATED 16.02.2001, COPY OF WHICH WAS FILE D BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER? FROM THE RECORDS, IT APPEARS T HAT NO SUCH LETTER WAS EVER FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. NOW WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THIS IN THE BACKGROUND OF T HE FACT THAT THE OBJECTION TO THE VALIDITY OF PROCEEDI NGS RAISED IN THE APPEAL MEMO WAS NOT PRESSED AT THE TI ME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. IN OTHER WORDS, WHE N THE APPELLANT WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, SHE CHOSE TO WITHDRAW THIS GROU ND OF APPEAL. I CAN THINK OF NO OTHER REASON FOR WIT HDRAWAL OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL. IT MUST ALSO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE MY PREDECESSOR AND HE WAS, THEREFORE, NOT OBLIGED TO G IVE ANY REASONS FOR REJECTION OF THIS GROUND, HE CLEARL Y MENTIONED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER THAT IF THE APPELL ANT HAD REALLY ANY OBJECTION REGARDING THE SERVICE OF N OTICE U/S 143(2), SHE SHOULD HAVE RAISED THAT OBJECTION B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS MEANS THAT THIS ISSUE W AS CLEAR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE ORIGINAL APPEAL THAT NO OBJECTION TO THE ISSUE OF THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TAKEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW THE ONLY SO CALLED EV IDENCE, WHICH THE APPELLANT IS ABLE TO PRODUCE TO PROVE THA T OBJECTION WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, I S A COPY OF THE LETTER WHICH IS DATED 16.02.2001, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE EVEN TO PROVE THAT THIS LETTER WAS, IN FAC T, WRITTEN ON 16.02.2001, MUCH LESS TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS LETTER WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN FACT, THE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF ORIGINAL APPEAL AND THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT NO SUCH LETTER WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. IN ANY CASE, THE ONUS TO PROVE THAT OBJECTION HAD BEEN 5 TAKEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ON THE APPEL LANT AND THIS ONUS WAS DISCHARGED BY THE APPELLANT. 3.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD THA T FIRST NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAD BEEN ISSUED WITHIN TIME LIMIT ATION PROVIDED IN SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT AND IN ANY CA SE, NO OBJECTION TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE HAVING BEEN TAKEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS POINT CANNOT BE TAKEN U P IN APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE RESTORED BY HONBLE IT AT, CHANDIGARH IS ADJUDICATED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS DISM ISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES, CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND PER USED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE IN GRO UNDS OF APPEAL HAS RAISED FIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ON GROUN D NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE SIMILAR ISSUE OF VALIDI TY OF SERVICE OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WH ICH WE TAKE UP AS UNDER. 3.1 ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) EXAMINED THE RECORD OF THE CASE AN D FOUND THAT WHATEVER WAS EARLIER PLEADED BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS NOT ACTUALLY CORRECT. THE NOTICE UND ER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 30.09.1999 WAS AVAILABLE ON ASSESSMENT RECORD WHICH WAS ISSUED WITH THE APPROVA L OF THE JCIT, RANGE-I ON 30.09.1999. THE COPY OF THE SAME IS ALSO PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 35 . IT WOULD REVEAL THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) HAS BEEN IS SUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASS ESSEE AND WAS SENT BY POST AND WAS BEARING DISPATCH NUMBER AS WELL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ON GOING 6 THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, HE DID NOT FIND IF T HE REGISTERED COVER CONTAINING THE SAID NOTICE RETURNE D TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT T HE REGISTERED COVER CONTAINING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) DA TED 30.09.1999 SENT BY REGISTERED POST WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. SECTION 2 7 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 PROVIDES AS UNDER : 27. MEANING OF SERVICE BY POST- WHERE ANY CENTRAL ACT OR REGULATION MADE AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS ACT AUTHORIZES OR REQUIRES ANY DOCUMENT TO BE SERVED Y POST, WHETHER THE EXPRESSION SERVE OR EITHER OF THE EXPRESSION GIVE OR SEND OR ANY OTHER EXPRESSION IS USED, THEN, UNLESS A DIFFERENT INTENTION APPEARS, THE SERVICE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE EFFECTED BY PROPERLY ADDRESSING, PRE-PAYING AND POSTING BY REGISTERED POST, A LETTER CONTAINING THE DOCUMENT, AND UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVED, TO HAVE BEEN EFFECTED AT TH E TIME AT WHICH THE LETTER WOULD BE DELIVERED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF POST. 4. IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 3(2) WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION BY POST WHICH IS PROPERLY STAMPED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SINCE THE REGISTERED CO VER CONTAINING NOTICE DID NOT RETURN BACK TO THE REVENU E DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, SAME IS SERVED UPON ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THIS NOTICE IS, THEREFORE, SERVED UPON ASSESSEE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIO N OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2008. WE MAY ALSO NOTE H ERE THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) SPECIFICALLY RECORDED THAT ASSESSE E HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE REGARD ING NON- SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) BEFORE THE A SSESSING 7 OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD CLEARLY REVEAL THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS SERVED UPON ASSESSEE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE OTHE R CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE IRRELEVANT AND HAVE BEEN CORRE CTLY IGNORED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). WE MAY ALSO NOTE HERE THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO NOT ED THAT WHEN INITIALLY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142( 1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THESE NOTICES, THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER COUNSEL APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND FILED DETAILS TIME TO TIME AND CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH THEM AT ASSESSMENT STAGE. THESE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE INITIAL NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) DATED 30.09 .1999 WAS SERVED UPON ASSESSEE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIO N AS PRESCRIBED IN THE PROVISO TO SEC 143(2) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3 0.09.1999 UNDER SECTION 143(2) IN THE PAPER BOOK, COPY OF WHI CH IS PLACED AT PAGE 35 BUT HE COULD NOT SHOW SATISFACTOR ILY AS TO FROM WHERE HE HAS PROCURED COPY OF THIS NOTICE WHEN ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED UPON ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY AND HAS MERELY STATED THAT SINCE THE RE WERE NO SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE NOTICE, THEREFORE, IT WAS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. IN THE PAPER BOOK, ASSESSEE'S C OUNSEL HAS ALSO GIVEN A CERTIFICATE THAT PAGE 35 I.E. COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) DATED 30.09.1999 WAS BEFORE AS SESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS). IF SAID NOTICE WAS N OT SERVED 8 UPON ASSESSEE, HOW IT COULD BE PLACED BEFORE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS) AT THE RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS. THESE FACTS WOULD STRENGTHEN THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS ) THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) DATED 30.09.1999 WAS VA LIDLY ISSUED THROUGH REGISTERED POST AT THE CORRECT ADDRE SS OF THE ASSESSEE BY PAYING PROPER POSTAL CHARGES WHICH HAS BEEN SERVED UPON ASSESSEE. OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSEE WOUL D NOT HAVE BEEN IN A POSITION TO PLACE COPY OF THE SAID N OTICE IN THE PAPER BOOK. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS ACC ORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 6. ON THE REMAINING GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1, 2, 4 & 5, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,06,680/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ADDITION OF RS. 33,16,042/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS CREDITORS. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER MADE BOTH THESE ADDITIONS AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE WHEN THE MATTER TRAVELED TO ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH EARLIER IN ITA NO. 246 OF 2003 AND TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 21.07.2006, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 143(2) TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) WITH DIRECTION TO DECI DE THE ISSUE AFRESH. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS PLACE D ON RECORD AND FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IS ALSO REPRODUCED IN T HE APPELLATE ORDER. THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH DID NOT GIVE ANY FINDING ON THE ISSUE OF BOTH THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS. IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING ON MERITS, THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT GIVE ANY DIRECTION TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHETHER TO DECIDE THESE ADDITIONS AGAIN ON MERIT, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY 9 FINDING OR DIRECTION IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL D ATED 21.07.2006 REGARDING BOTH THESE ADDITIONS ON MERITS , THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THEREFORE, RIGHTLY DID NOT DECIDE BOTH THESE ADDITIONS ON MERIT IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. IT IS W ELL SETTLED LAW THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CANNOT ENLARGE THE SCOPE OF THE AP PELLATE ORDER, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 143(2) ONLY TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR AFRESH ADJUDICATION, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS N OT BOUND TO DECIDE OTHER GROUNDS ON MERITS. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S) CANNOT ENLARGE THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE TR IBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 21.07.2006. 7. IN THE REMAINING GROUND NOS. 1, 2, 4 & 5, THE AS SESSEE CHALLENGED ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN NOT PASSING THE ORDER ON MERITS OF THESE TWO ADDITIONS. AS NOTED ABOVE, SINCE THERE WERE NO DIRECTIONS TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO DECID E THE ADDITIONS ON MERIT, THEREFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT BOUND TO DECIDE BOTH THE ADDITIONS ON MERIT IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS, COULD NOT CONTRIBUTE MUCH ON THESE GROUN DS OF APPEAL AND HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE AS TO W HAT IS ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN NOT DECIDING THESE GROUNDS AS PER DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. SI NCE THESE ISSUES WERE NOT BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AS PER DIRE CTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT PASSING ANY APPELLATE ORDER. SINCE THESE GROUNDS A RE NOT ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) UN DER APPEAL, 10 THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTE RFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THESE GROUNDS. GROUND NOS. 1, 2, 4 & 5 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY , DISMISSED. 8. NO OTHER GROUND/ISSUE IS ARGUED OR PRESSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH OCTOBER,2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10 TH OCTOBER,2014. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH