Archana Ramankumar Mundada(Alias Archana Hitesh Somani), Vadodara V. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

ITA 1170/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0334 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-03-2020
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R R MAKWANA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 147; 148

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.1170/AHD/2018 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2012-13 ARCHANA RAMANKUMAR MUNDADA [ALIAS ARCHANA HITESH SOMANI] 8, SEVAK NAGAR BESIDE GAUTAM NAGAR RACE COURSE VADODARA 390 007. PAN : AMZPM 5094 M VS. ITO, WARD - 1(2)(2) VADODARA. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAKAR SHARMA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI R.R. MAKWANA, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 12/01/2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15/03/2021 +,/ O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-4, VADODARA DATED 26.3.2018 PASSED FOR TH E ASSTT.YEAR 2012-13. 2. IN THE APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING THREE GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NO T ADJUDICATING GROUND RELATING TO VALIDITY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS MANDATED FOR ISSUING NOTICE U /S 148 BY THE STATUTE. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT ADJUDICATING GROUND RELATING TO ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 AS THERE WAS NO ESCAPEMENT O F INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 AND RELATED CONDITIONS SPECI FIED IN THE ACT HAD NOT BEEN SATISFIED AT ALL. ITA.NO.1170/AHD/2018 2 1. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLD ING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,48,621/- U/S. 50C MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE EXPLANATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLA NT MADE N THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 3. IN THE FIRST TWO GROUNDS, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE A SSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DESPITE SPECIFIC GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS BEHALF. 4. BEFORE GOING TO THE MERIT OF THE CASE, THE LD.CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 1 47 BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE GROUND NO.1 AND 2 OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND MENTIONED IN PAGE NO.2 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A DETAILED SUBMISSIONS IN THIS BEHALF, WHICH HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER FROM PAGE NO.24 TO 45. DESPITE THE ASSESSEE HAVING TAKEN A SPECIFIC GROUND TO THE EFFECT THAT A SSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 IS INVALID, THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE SAME AND TREATED THE SAME AS GENERAL IN NATURE. IT IS S UBMITTED THAT SINCE ADJUDICATION ON THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE AS SESSMENT AT THE END OF THE LD.CIT(A) GOES ROOT OF THE MATTER, AND HAVE CONSEQU ENTIAL EFFECT ON THE SURVIVAL OF IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF, BEI NG A LEGAL ISSUE, TRIBUNAL MAY DECIDE THE ISSUE OR THE ISSUE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR READJUDICATION OF THIS ISSUE. ON THE OTHER HA ND, THE LD.DR DID NOT DISPUTE THE FACTUM OF NON-ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE OF VALI DITY OF REOPENING BY THE LD.CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORD ER OF THE LD.CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A SPECIFIC GROUND B EFORE THE LD.CIT(A) ITA.NO.1170/AHD/2018 3 CHALLENGING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND VAL IDITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE A DETAILED SUBMISSIONS IN THIS BEHALF, AND THE SAME WERE INCORPORATED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED STARTING FROM PAGE NO.24 TO 45 OF THE ORDER AND THE SAME WAS NOT DEALT WITH BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND HE SIMPLY REJECTED THE GROUNDS AS BEI NG GENERAL IN NATURE. IT IS STIPULATED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF T HE ACT THAT APPELLATE ORDER MUST BE IN WRITING, STATING POINTS FOR CONSIDERATIO N ETC. THUS, SECTION 250(6) PROVIDES THAT ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y REQUIRES TO STATE THE POINTS ARISING IN APPEAL ALONG WITH THE REASONS FOR SUCH D ECISION. A DECISION BY ITS NATURE MUST BE FIRM AND SHOULD NOT BE VAGUE AND UNC LEAR. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND FINDING, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E ISSUE HAS TO BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATI ON ON THE BASIS OF THE SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE, AN D DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY. WE DO SO, AND ALLOW THE GROUND NO.1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. SINCE THE VERY CORE ISSUE REGARDING VALIDITY OF RE OPENING HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR RECONSIDERAT ION, OTHER ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.3 IS ALSO SET SIDE, WHICH SHALL BE DECIDE D ON THE BASIS OF DECISION TAKEN ON THE GROUND NO.1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 15 TH MARCH, 2021 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 15/03/2021