ITO, Chandigarh V. Sh. Jaswant Singh Mann, Chandigarh

ITA 1168/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7772 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJEET SINGH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1168/CHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH.JASWANT SINGH MANN , WARD 4(4), PROP.M/S G.K.FLOWERS, CHANDIGARH. # 266, SECTOR 35-A, CHANDIGARH. PAN: ANXPK1655K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANJEET SINGH, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY JAGGA DATE OF HEARING : 18.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.07.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DA TED 7.6.2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPE AL BY THE REVENUE IS VIDE GROUND NO.1 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THA T THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) HAD RAISE D VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT NO ISSUE IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.88 ,97,365/- WAS RAISED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA 4 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER BY WHICH THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ADDR ESSED ONLY THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.88,97,365/-. 2 4. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE ABOVE SAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENU E AND WAS AWARDED TIME TO ADDRESS THE BENCH IN RESPECT OF THE PRELIMI NARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE. IN REPLY THE LEA RNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BY WAY OF GROUND NO.1 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ARBITRARY, BUT THE SPEC IFIC GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.88,97,365/- WAS NOT RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (APPEALS) WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS TOTALING RS.88,97,365/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED G ROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 TO 9 BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) WHICH ARE INCORPORA TED UNDER PARA 2 AT PAGES 2 TO 4 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER AND THE SAME AR E NOT BEING REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID G ROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) REFLECTS T HE SAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEING ARGUMENTATIVE AND WERE IN THE FORM OF SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO RAISE SPECIFI C GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.88,97,365/-. 6. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD FAIRLY ADM ITTED TO THE ABOVE SAID OMISSION. THE CIT (APPEALS) PROCEEDED TO DISP OSE OF THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING VIDE PARA 4 AS UNDER: 4. SINCE THE GROUNDS ARE NOT VERY SPECIFIC, I WOUL D ADDRESS THE ISSUES TAKEN UP ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH LED TO THE ADDITION OF RS.8897365. 7. IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC GROUND OF APPEAL RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF THE ADMISSION OF THE LEARNED A.R. FO R THE ASSESSEE WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE O F THE CIT (APPEALS) TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE AGAINST THE NON- COMPLIANCE OF PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 142(3) OF THE ACT AND THE RELIANCE 3 ON VARIOUS AFFIDAVITS ETC. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBE RTY TO RAISE ANY ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IF SO ADVISED. THE CIT (APPEALS) SHALL DECIDE THE APPEAL DE-NOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AF TER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. WE ARE NOT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE ON THE MERITS OF DELETION MADE BY THE CIT (APPEALS). 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF JULY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 24 TH JULY, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH