Suman Gupta, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 129/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77086 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR AMA RVEER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI GUPTA
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Assessment record
• Section: 153A; 246; 132; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 128 TO 134/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1999-2000 TO 2005-06 SMT. SUMAN GUPTA VS. THE ACIT 3007, SEC- 19 D CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AGOPG3053B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. ASHWANI GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : DR. AMARVEER SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 13/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/05/2014 ORDER PER T.R. SOOD A.M IN ALL THESE APPEALS COMMON GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN THE LAW AND ON FACT S IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT AS PER SEARCH SCHEME U/S 153 A OF THE AC T DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO SEARCH IN THE CASE OF APPELL ANT. 2. THAT DESPITE DIRECTIONS BY THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL WHILE RESTORING THE APPEALS FOR FRESH DECISION, THE LD. CIT(A) AVOIDED TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF THE AO BY VIRTUE OF SEC 12 7 OF THE ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT CIT(A) IS NOT EMPOWERED U/S 246 A OF TH E ACT TO ADJUDICATE ON THE MATTER AND ALSO AVOIDED TO GIVE ANY FINDINGS ON INACTION OF THE LD. AO AS PER SEC 124 OF THE ACT. 3. THAT THE LD. AO HAD SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT TO THE LD. CIT(A), BUT COPY THEREOF IS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSES. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED COMMON ORDER IN B UNCH OF APPEALS ARISING FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE COPY OF O RIGINAL ORDER IS ATTACHED WITH ONE APPEAL AND WITH REST OF APPEALS A TTESTED COPIES OF ORDER IS ATTACHED. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, ALTER OR ADD TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND D ISPOSED OFF. 6. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT RECORD O F THE LD. AO AND THE SEARCH RECORD OF THE CASE MAY KINDLY BE SUMMONED FO R BETTER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 7. THE APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE PAPER BOOK DURING THE HEARING IN THE MATTER. 8. IT IS PRAYED ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING BEYOND JURIS DICTION OF THE LD. AO, MAY KINDLY BE ANNULLED AND QUASHED ALONG WITH THE O RDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 2. AT THE OUTSET SHRI ASHWANI GUPTA WHO IS BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND WHO HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED TO APPEAR BEFO RE US STATED THAT ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE O RDER OF TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF MS. MONICA GUPTA CHANDIGARH VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 139 TO 144/CHD/2013 AND IN CASE OF SMT. RACHNA GUPTA VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 116 TO 122 /CHD/2013. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF CIT(A). 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION WE FIND T HAT THESE ISSUES WERE DECIDED IN CASE OF SMT RACHNA GUPTA VS. ACIT VIDE P ARA NO. 5 TO 8 WHICH ARE AS UNDER : 5. GROUND NO.1. PERUSAL OF THE PAGE 85 WHICH IS C OPY OF THE WARRANT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT SEARCH WARRANT WA S ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND SMT . RACHNA GARG FOR THE SEARCH OF LOCKER NO.62, SBI. INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE I, CHANDIGARH. A PANCHNAMA IS ALSO MADE AFTER SEARCH OF LOCKER NO. 62, COPY OF WH ICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 79, THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THA T A SEARCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED AND SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS COMBINED IN THE NAME OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND SMT. RACHNA GARG. WE FURTHER FIND THAT SECTION 292 CC HAS BEEN INSERTED BY FINAN CE ACT 2012 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.1996. THE SECTION READS AS UNDER:- AUTHORISATION AND ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION. 292CC. (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS ACT, (I) IT SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY TO ISSUE AN AUTHORIS ATION UNDER SECTION 132 OR MAKE A REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A SEPARATELY IN THE NAME OF EACH PERSON; (II) WHERE AN AUTHORISATION UNDER SECTION 132 HAS BEEN ISSUED OR REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A HAS BEEN MADE MENTIONING THEREIN THE NAME OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, THE MENTION OF SUCH NAMES OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON ON SUCH AUTHORISATION OR REQUISITION SHALL N OT BE DEEMED TO CONSTRUE THAT IT WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME O F AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS OR BODY OF INDIVIDUALS CONSISTING OF SUCH PERSONS. (2) NOTWITHSTANDING THAT AN AUTHORISATION UNDER SECTION 132 HAS BEEN ISSUED OR REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A HAS BEEN MADE MENTIONING THEREIN THE NAME OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT SHA LL BE MADE SEPARATELY IN THE NAME OF EACH OF THE PERSO NS MENTIONED IN SUCH AUTHORISATION OR REQUISITION.] 6. FROM THE ABOVE IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ISSUE THE WARRANTS IN THE NAME OF EACH OF THE PERSON SEPARATELY. THIS MEANS THAT SEARCH WARRANTS ISSUED IN THE JOINT NAMES IS ALSO VALID. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS GROUND AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS REJECTED. 7. AS FAR AS OTHER GROUNDS ARE CONCERNED AS CONCEDE D BY SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA, THE ISSUES ARE IDENTIC AL TO THE CASE OF MS MONICA GUPTA, THEREFORE, OUR ORDE RS IN THE CASE OF MS. MONICA GUPTA V ACIT IN ITA NO. 1 39 TO 144/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE AL SO. IN THOSE ORDERS, GROUND NOS. 2 TO 7 WERE ADJUDICATED V IDE PARAS 9 TO 13 WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 9. GROUND NO.2: BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD IN DETAIL. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, W E ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS GROUND IS ONLY OF A ACADEM IC NATURE BECAUSE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY HELD THAT ASSESSMENT TO BE NULL AND VOID WHICH HAS NOT BEEN AGITATED BY WAY OF APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. THEREFOR E, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL BEING OF ACADEMIC NATURE DOES NOT NEED ADJUDICATION. 10. GROUND NO.3: THE LD. SHRI ASHWANI GUPTA SUBMITTED THAT THAT COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT WAS N OT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS HER RIGHT. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ITSELF, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO NEED TO SEPARATELY SUPPLY THE COPY. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT COPY O F THE REMAND REPORT HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD . CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH WE HAVE EXTRACT ED ABOVE. THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLYING THE COPY OF REMAND REPORT AT BEST CAN BE TO MAKE AWARE OF THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO ASSESSEE. ONCE THE REPORT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THEN ASSESSEE GOT TO KNOW THE CONTENTS OF THE REMAND REPORT WHICH IS IN ANY CASE IN HER FAVOUR. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO FURTHER NEED FOR SUPPLY OF THE REMAND REPORT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 12. GROUND NO.4 : BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD IN DETAIL. WE FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN THIS GROUND BECAUS E IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE WITH THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITIES AS WELL WITH THE TRIBUNALS AND THE HIGH COURTS TO P ASS COMMON ORDER IN RELATION TO ONE ASSESSEE FOR VARIOU S ASSESSMENT YEARS OR GROUP OF ASSESSEES, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS INFRUCTUOUS AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSE D. 13. GROUND NO. 5, 6 & 7: THESE GROUNDS ARE GENERAL AND ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND DO NOT NEED SEPARATE ADJUDICATION AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 8. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT DURING THE SEARCH NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND AND, THEREFORE, RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER BY MAKING BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMEN T U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 144. SINCE NO ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE, THEREFORE, ALL THE ISSUES ARE OF ACADEMIC NATURE AND THAT IS ANOTHER REASON THAT DETAILED ADJUDICATION HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY US. 5. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, WE DECIDE THE ISSUES RAISED THROUGH THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20/05/20 14 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 20 TH MAY, 2014 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, CHANDIGARH