JILANI ABBAS SHEIKH, Latur V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Latur, Latur

ITA 124/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Jilani Abbas Sheikh, who appealed against the re-assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer for the assessment year 2012-2013. The primary contention was the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the re-assessment order, which is mandatory as per CBDT circulars. The Tribunal examined the procedural compliance of the re-assessment order and found it lacking, leading to the decision to quash the order. The Tribunal referenced several precedents and circulars to support its decision, emphasizing the importance of procedural correctness in tax assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137286 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: AllowedAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2023
• Other Referred Cases: All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT, National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, Sanjay Punamchand Kothari vs. ACIT, Shri H.K. Suresh vs. PCIT, Kantilal & Bros. vs. ACIT, CIT vs. Jawanmal Gemaji Gandhi
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.124/PUN./2023 Assessment Year 2012-2013 Shri Jilani Abbas Sheikh, At Post – Sindkhed, Tq Nilanga, District Latur. Maharashtra. PIN 413 521 PAN DRDPS5867J vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, 2 nd Floor, Swati Chambers, Ausa Road, Latur. Maharashtra. PIN 413 512 Applicant Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.N. Puranik Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of Hearing : 27.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 आदेश / ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”], Delhi’s Din & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047624209(1), dated 24.11.2022, involving proceedings under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee has raised his additional legal ground that both the learned lower authorities have framed the re-assessment in issue dated 26.12.2019 without quoting the mandatory document identification 2 ITA.No.124/PUN./2023 Shri Jilani Abbas Sheikh, Post Sindkhed, TQ Nilanga, Dist. Latur. number “DIN” in conformity with the CBDT’s circular nos.19/2019 dated 14.09.2019 and 27/2019 dated 26.09.2019. 3. The Revenue vehemently opposed the admission of assessee’s foregoing additional ground stated to be at a belated stage. 4. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant technical objections once the assessee’s foregoing legal ground goes to the root of the matter. This tribunal’s Special Bench decision in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT [2012] 137 ITD 287 [Mum.] [SB]; after considering National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 [SC], holds that we can very well entertain such a pure legal questions for determining the correct tax liability of an assessee provided all the relevant facts are already on record. The Revenue could hardly dispute from a perusal of the re-assessment herein dated 26.12.2019 that Assessing Officer has nowhere quoted any “DIN” as per the CBDT’s foregoing circulars. Faced with the situation, we quote this tribunal’s recent coordinate bench’s order dated 14.02.2023 in ITA.Nos.47 & 59/PUN/2021 Sanjay Punamchand Kothari vs. ACIT quashing the assessment in issue as follows : “2. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee’s twin appeals IT(SS)A Nos. 12/PUN/2021 and 11/PUN/2022 for former assessment year 2017-18 hardly requires us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix. This is for the precise reason that 3 ITA.No.124/PUN./2023 Shri Jilani Abbas Sheikh, Post Sindkhed, TQ Nilanga, Dist. Latur. neither the Assessing Officer’s assessment herein dated 27.12.2019 nor his 154 rectification in both these appeals; respectively contain the corresponding “DIN & Order” details as prescribed in CBDT’s twin circular Nos.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 and 27/2019 dated 26.09.2019; respectively. The above former circular rather makes it explicitly clear in para 4 thereof that any communication not containing such DIN and Order number “shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued”. Faced with the situation, Mr. Jasnani filed the Assessing Officer’s subsequent intimation to the assessee dated 29.12.2019 that he had duly allotted “DIN & Order” number to his assessment order dated 27.12.2019. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant vehement argument supporting the assessment herein as once the CBDT circular has clarified that such an order ought to be treated as to have never been issued herein (supra). We conclude that the impugned assessment deserves to be quashed on this count alone. This tribunal’s order in ITA No.625/Bang/2021 in Shri H.K. Suresh vs. PCIT has already rejected the Revenue’s identical contentions that its default in allotting “DIN and Order” number in above terms could not be condoned by way of any subsequent intimation as well. We therefore quash the impugned assessment herein as well 4 ITA.No.124/PUN./2023 Shri Jilani Abbas Sheikh, Post Sindkhed, TQ Nilanga, Dist. Latur. as the Assessing Officer’s section 154 rectification dated 04.01.2021 in very terms. These assessee’s twin appeals IT(SS)A Nos.12/PUN/2021 and 11/PUN/2022 stand accepted. 3. This leaves us with the latter assessment year 2018-19 wherein both the assessee as well as the Revenue have filed their respective appeals ITA Nos.47 & 59/PUN/2021; respectively. The sole issue that arises for our apt adjudication in both these appeals is that of “telescoping” of section 69A unexplained money addition of Rs.1,66,40,000/- made by the Assessing Officer which has been partly allowed to be set off in CIT(A)’s order to the extent of Rs.1,18,22,400/- vide following detailed discussion: 5 ITA.No.124/PUN./2023 Shri Jilani Abbas Sheikh, Post Sindkhed, TQ Nilanga, Dist. Latur. 6 ITA.No.124/PUN./2023 Shri Jilani Abbas Sheikh, Post Sindkhed, TQ Nilanga, Dist. Latur. This leaves both the parties aggrieved to the extent indicated in their respective pleadings. The assessee’s case before us not only seeks to delete the impugned section 69A addition of Rs.1,66,40,000/- in entirety but also learned counsel submitted that the same is very much eligible to be set off as well; both against unaccounted cash of 7 ITA.No.124/PUN./2023 Shri Jilani Abbas Sheikh, Post Sindkhed, TQ Nilanga, Dist. Latur. Rs.1,18,22,400/- as well as unaccounted jewellery of Rs.1,00,90,400/-, as per (1995) 52 ITD 412 (Pune) Kantilal & Bros. vs. ACIT and (1983) 15 Taxman 487 (Bom) CIT vs. Jawanmal Gemaji Gandhi, so as to avoid double addition. The Revenue’s pleadings on the other hand vehemently support the Assessing Officer’s action in entirety not allowing the impugned set off. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration for vehement rival stands. Learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the foregoing twin judicial precedents are already in assessee’s support that such a set off could very well be granted even against jewellery items and vice-versa. This is further coupled with the clinching fact that page 41 before us is the seized material against the assessee found during the course of search on 04.11.2017. There is neither any amount mentioned therein nor the sum total thereof so as to draw any presumption of correctness of contents thereof u/s 292C of the Act. Mr. Jasnani at this stage vehemently argued that the assessee’s search statement had admitted various amounts as per the contents of seized document. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant argument in light of CBDT’s twin landmark circulars dated 10.03.2003 and 18.12.2004 that a searched party’s admissions or 8 ITA.No.124/PUN./2023 Shri Jilani Abbas Sheikh, Post Sindkhed, TQ Nilanga, Dist. Latur. confessions during search or survey hardly carry any significance in the absence of any supportive evidence. We reiterate that the foregoing sole seized document is totally “dumb” as there are no clear-cut entries which could suggest any payments or receipts, as the case may be involving this assessee. Faced with the situation, we accept the assessee’s pleadings as well as the main appeal ITA No.47/PUN/2021 and dismiss the Revenue’s cross appeal ITA No.59/PUN/2021 as the necessary corollary. Ordered accordingly.” 5. We adopt the foregoing detailed reasoning mutantis mutandis to quash the impugned re-assessment herein dated 26.12.2019 itself. All other pleadings on merits stands rendered academic. Ordered accordingly. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30.03.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (G.D. PADMAHSHALI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 30 th March, 2023 VBP/- 9 ITA.No.124/PUN./2023 Shri Jilani Abbas Sheikh, Post Sindkhed, TQ Nilanga, Dist. Latur. Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. The Appellant; 2. The Respondent; 3. The NFAC, Delhi 4. 5. 6. The CCIT, Pune The DR ‘A’, ITAT, Pune Guard File BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary : ITAT : Pune