Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0627 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
29-07-2024
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
29-07-2024
Assessment Year
2014-2015
Appeal Filed On
09-04-2023
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE MANISH AGARWAL Smt. Pramila Patra, Friends Colony, Lunahar, Salipur, Cuttack PAN/GIR No (Appellant Trilochan Patra, Friends Colony, Lunahar, Salipur, Cuttack PAN/GIR No (Appellant Assessee by Per Bench ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022 These are of the ld CIT( IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013 Smt. Pramila Patra, Friends Colony, Lunahar, Salipur, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Cuttack PAN/GIR No.BZYPP 3594 A (Appellant) .. ( Respondent ITA Nos.110 to 115/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2009 -10 to 2014 Trilochan Patra, Friends Colony, Lunahar, Salipur, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Cuttack PAN/GIR No.ANEPP 0666 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Saswat Acharya & Abhijeet Agarwal, Advs Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty Date of Hearing : 30/0 Date of Pronouncement : 30/0 O R D E R ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022-Pramila Patra These are appeals filed by the assessee against the of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 28.12.2021 Page1 | 15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 22 13 & 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1), Cuttack Respondent) s.110 to 115/CTK/2023 10 to 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1), Cuttack Respondent) Saswat Acharya & Abhijeet Agarwal, Advs : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR 07/2024 /07/2024 Pramila Patra filed by the assessee against the separate orders in Appeal No. ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA Nos.110 to 115/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2009 -10 to 2014-15 Page2 | 15 CIT(A),Cuttack/10423/2016-17 and CIT(A),Cuttack/10424/2016-17 for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14, respectively. 2. Shri Saswat Acharya and Shri Abhijeet Agarwal, ld ARs appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR tht the case has been reopened within a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant previous year, thus the approval was obtained from JCIT, Range-1, Cuttack. However, there were specific reasons recorded before initiating the proceedings u/s.148 of the Act For this, he placed reliance on the copy of the order sheet available on record. Further, according to ld AR no enquiry/investigation was carried out and the ITO simply proceeded with the half hazard information stated to have been received from DDIT (Inv) Unit -2, Bhubaneswar. It was submitted by ld AR that the sanction/approval by the JCIT, Range-1, Cuttack in respect of reasons recorded were un-substantiable insofar as there was no reasons recorded and there was no information on the basis of which, the reopening could have been done. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR has placed before us the copy of the order sheet entries which are as follows: “28.3.2016 Information received from the DDIT (Inv.) Unit-2(1), Bhubaneswar reveals that Smt. Pramila Patra and her husband Sri Trilochan Patra has made huge investments during the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA Nos.110 to 115/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2009 -10 to 2014-15 Page3 | 15 2012-13 which is not in commensurate with the income shown in the income tax return filed by the assessee for the year. As income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2012-13, action u/s.147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2012-13 is suggested in this case, if approved.” 5. It was the submission by ld AR the order sheet entry on 28.3.2016 as extracted above is the reasons recorded. He also placed before us the copy of the approval alongwith proposals, which reads as follows: “ ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA Nos.110 to 115/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2009 -10 to 2014-15 Page4 | 15 ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA Nos.110 to 115/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2009 -10 to 2014-15 Page5 | 15 6. It was the submission that the JCIT, Range-1, Cuttack has categorically mentioned that he is satisfied with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. He further drew our attention to the information referred to as the basis for the reasons recorded, which were at pages 14 to 18 of paper book, as follows“ ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA Nos.110 to 115/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2009 -10 to 2014-15 Page6 | 15 ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA Nos.110 to 115/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2009 -10 to 2014-15 Page7 | 15 ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA Nos.110 to 115/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2009 -10 to 2014-15 Page8 | 15 7. It was the submission that this was the information on the basis of which, reopening has been initiated. It was the submission that in pages 14 ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA Nos.110 to 115/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2009 -10 to 2014-15 Page9 | 15 & 15, the values of the various purchases and the document Nos. are there. It was the submission that pages 16 & 18 showed the assessee’s name. It was the submission that this information was obtained from the Sub- Registrar office through RTI by a third party and provided to the department. 8. At this point, ld Sr DR was specifically asked as to whether there is any other documents or records other than that what is mentioned in the order sheet recording for the purpose of showing the reasons recorded. Ld Sr DR specifically submitted that there is no other document other than this. It was the submission that the order sheet entry dtd.28.3.2016 itself is the reasons which have been validly recorded and requisite approval has also been obtained. It was the submission that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. It was further submitted that the assessee has been non-cooperative in the assessment proceedings. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. One of the primary requirements for reopening is the recording of reasons. The reasons are to be live and it should specify the probable escapement of income. It need not be the exact figure. There should be some figure. There should be some information as to how the Assessing officer has come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income either in the form of some investigation or enquiry or documentation or wrong interpretation of law. A perusal of the reasons recorded in the present case clearly shows that the ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA Nos.110 to 115/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2009 -10 to 2014-15 Page10 | 15 Assessing Officer mentions that he has received information from the DDIT (Inv), Unit -2(1), Bhubaneswar. No further investigation or enquiry has been done by the Assessing Officer nor does it mention so. There is nothing to show that the DDIT (Inv), Unit -2(1), Bhubaneswar has also arrived at any satisfaction. If there was a case of satisfaction recorded by the DDIT (Inv), Unit -2(1), Bhubaneswar, then it could have been a case of borrowed satisfaction. The reasons recorded does not speak of how the DDIT (Inv), Unit -2(1), Bhubaneswar received this information. A perusal of the so called information, which has been extracted above, clearly shows that these are certain reference to documents or order of certain transaction and value of such transaction. Pages 14 & 15 do not refer to whom they relate. These are only mentioned to be agreement. It is not verifiable if the transaction stated in these documents are purchases or sales. Documents at page 16 & 18 refer to the assessee and her husband. There are no figures mentioned in those documents. When examining the reasons recorded with the evidence one of the primary requirement is that when such evidences are looked into by a normal common person, it should show that there is some escapement. The so called documents which have been obtained by a third party through RTI and provided to the department does not give any impression in any manner. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer on 28.3.2016 as mentioned in the order sheet also does not give any such picture. This being so, in the absence of any live link ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA Nos.110 to 115/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2009 -10 to 2014-15 Page11 | 15 between the reasons recorded and the alleged information, we are of the view that the reasons recorded is bad in law and is liable to be quashed and we do so. 10. Coming to the approval granted as mentioned earlier, the reasons recorded are devoid of any information. The alleged documents on the basis of which the reasons have been recorded are also devoid of any connection and that the JCIT, Range-1, Cuttack has mentioned that he is satisfied with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. What is the basis for which the satisfaction has been recorded by the JCIT, Range-1, Cuttack is also not known. Another interesting aspect of the whole episode is the second page of the approval, which is the letter to the JCIT, Range-1, Cuttack by ITO, Ward -1(1), Cuttack. There is no reference to any records but it is stated that he is submitting the proposal for initiation of proceedings u/s.148 of the Act for the following cases for your kind perusal and necessary approval. This contains seven names totaling 21 assessment years. All have been provided on the same date and surprisingly at page 31 of PB, the JCIT Range-1, Cuttack has returned the satisfaction approval on the very same day i.e. on 28.3.2016 wherein, there is not even a change in the Sl.No. and seven persons in the same seriatim, 21 files are returned and this time alongwith assessment records. The copy of the letter dated 28.3.2016 ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA Nos.110 to 115/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2009 -10 to 2014-15 Page12 | 15 from the JCIT, Range-1, Cuttack to ITO, Ward -1(1), Cuttack reads as follows: ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA Nos.110 to 115/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2009 -10 to 2014-15 Page13 | 15 11. Thus, the Assessing Officer has received information from the DDIT (Inv), Unit -2(1), Bhubaneswar, records his findings without even making any enquiry /investigation at his end for reopening of assessment on 28.3.2016 in the order sheet, send the files to JCIT, Range- 1, Cuttack for approval. JCIT, Range-1, Cuttack goes through the records and satisfaction and approval for reopening on 28.3.2016 and the files are returned to the ITO, Ward -1(1) Cuttack for the purpose of issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act on 28.3.2016 but the notice u/s.148 is issued on 28.3.2016 served on the assessee on 31.3.2016. Thus, clearly the reasons recorded and the satisfaction being unsustainable, especially in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Serajuddin & Co. Kolkata in ITA Nos.39,40,41,42,43,44 & 45 of 2022 order dated 15.3.2023,(150 taxmann.com 146)(Odisha) which has also been approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.44989/2023 dated 28.11.2023, notice issued u/s.148 stands quashed and consequential assessment also stands quashed for both the assessment years. 12. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed. ITA Nos.110 to 115/CTK/2023: Trilochan Patra ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA Nos.110 to 115/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2009 -10 to 2014-15 Page14 | 15 13. These appeals of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld CIT(A) dated 6.2.2023 for the assessment years 2009 -10 to 2014-15 , respectively. 14. On identical issue, in our order of even date, we have quashed the reassessment in the case of Mrs Pramila Patra, wife of the assessee in ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022. As the facts are same and the assessment has been reopened on the basis of same reasons, following our decisions as above, we quash the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and consequential reassessments made in the case of the assessee, i.e. Trilochan Patra. 15. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30/07/2024. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 30/07/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) ITA Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA Nos.110 to 115/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2009 -10 to 2014-15 Page15 | 15 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The appellant: Smt. Pramila PatraTrilochan Patra, Friends Colony, Lunahar, Salipur, Cuttack 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1), Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy//
