M/s Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula V. ITO, Panchkula

ITA 1247/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9065 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI SARANGA L
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH NAYYAR
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1247/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL VS THE ACIT, MARKETING BOARD, WARD 3, PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. PAN: AAALH0016R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARISH NAYYAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAVI SARANGAL,CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.09.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) PANCHKULA DATED 16.09.201 2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DATED 16.09.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BEL OW. 3. GROUND NO. 1 IS GENERAL AND NEED NO ADJUDICATION . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROU ND NOS. 2 3, 4 AND 5. THESE GROUNDS ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSE D BEING NOT PRESSED. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ONLY PRESSED GROUND NO. 2 WITH REGARD TO RE-OPENING OF THE ASSES SMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 5. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2005 DECLARING NIL INCOME. THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 24.12.2007 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 10.7 9 CRORES. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RE-COMPUTED ON 28.12.2010 UNDER SECTION 143(3)/254 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT AT RS. 1.59 CRORE. LATER ON, ASSESSMENT WAS RE - OPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 29.03.2011 AFTER RECORDING REASONS. THE NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON ASSESSEE ON 29.03.2011. THE ASSESSEE W AS SUPPLIED COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO ROLLER C HARGES RECEIVED AT RS. 71,91076/- HELD SAME TO BE REVENUE RECEIPT AND 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 71,91,076/-. IT MAY BE NOTED HERE THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESS MENT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. 6. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ONLY ON THE REAS ON THAT RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE BEYOND TI ME 3 LIMIT OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 31.03.2010. THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) NOTED SECTION 149(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN THE FINDINGS WHEREBY IT IS PROVIDED THAT, IF FOUR YEARS, BUT NOT MORE THAN SIX YEARS, HAVE ELAPSED FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AMOUNTS TO OR IS LIKEL Y TO AMOUNT TO ONE LAKH RUPEES OR MORE FOR THAT YEAR. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE IN COME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, AMOUNTING TO MORE THAN RS. 1 LAC FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R UNDER APPEAL, THEREFORE, NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTIO N 148 ON 29.03.2011 IS WELL WITHIN TIME LIMIT OF SIX YEAR S AS PER CLAUSE (B) TO SECTION 149(1) OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSE D. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SIMILARLY SUBMI TTED BEFORE US THAT RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BEYOND FOUR YEARS IS INVALID. HOWEVER, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY ILLEGALITY IN THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN REFERRING TO CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 149(1) OF THE ACT. SINCE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE IN COME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WAS IN A S UM OF RS. 71,91,076/-, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 149(1)(B) WOULD APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO P OINT OUT ANY IRREGULARITY OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN REJECTING THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE 4 ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 8. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED BEFORE US. 9. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ADDITION ON MERIT, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAI NI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 26 TH SEPTEMBER,2016. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD