Jagdeep Singh, Chandigarh V. ITO, W-1(3), Chandigarh

ITA 1309/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2059 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIV SWAROOP SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 63; 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH SMC CHANDIGARH , ! BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM ./ ITA NO. 1309/CHD/2018 !' # $# / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI JAGDEEP SINGH, H.NO. 138, SECTOR 9-B, CHANDIGARH VS THE ITO, WARD 1 (3), CHANDIGARH. ./PAN NO: ACJPS7001E /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SACHIN JAIN / REVENUE BY : SHRI SHIV SWAROOP SINGH, SR.DR /DATE OF HEARING : 29.05.2019 !'#$%& /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.06.2019 %& /ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2018 OF CIT(A)-4, LUDHIANA PERTAINING T O 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO U/S 143(3) IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND IS VOID AB INITIO AND BE QUASHED. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,14,980/-. 3. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL T HE APPELLANT DISPUTES THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION OR AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 2. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO GROUND NO. 1 RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL INVITED SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO PAPER BOOK DOC UMENTS 60, 62 AND 63 SO AS TO ARGUE THAT THE ORDER PASSED HAVING BEEN PASSED BEYOND LIMITATI ON IN TERMS OF PROPOSITION OF LAW AS LAID DOWN BY THE COURTS IN CIT VS RAI BAHADUR KISHORE CHAND & SONS (2008) 4 DTR 0162 (P&H), K.JOSEPH JACOB VS AGRICULTURAL ITO AND ANOTHE R (1991) 190 ITR 0464 (KER), COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX VS KAPPUMAL AI ESTATE (1998) 148 CTR 0565 : ITA 1309/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 4 (1998) 234 ITR 0187 (KER, SHANTI LAL GODAWAT & ORS. VS ACIT (2009) 126 TTJ 0135 : (2009) 30 DTR 0413 (JODHPUR) WAS BAD IN LAW. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE SPECIFIC OBJECTION WAS POSED BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALSO. FOR RE ADY REFERENCE PARA 4 AND 4.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER : 4. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.L IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED BY THE LD. A.O U/S 143(3) IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND IS VOID AB INITIO AND B E QUASHED. 4.1 DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT , A) THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOTICE OF DEMAND U/S 156 P URPORTED TO HAVE BEEN PASSED ON 30.03.2015 WHEREAS INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON CPC/AST PORTAL SHOWS THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 31.03.2015 WHER EIN DEMAND OF RS. 117650 WAS MADE. HOW COME THE LD. AO KNOWS IN ADVANCE I.E ON 3 0.03.2015 THAT THE DEMAND OF RS. 117650/- WOULD BE DUE FROM THE ASSESSEE WHEN ACTUAL TAX DEMAND WAS WORKED ON AST/CPC PORTAL ON 31.03.2015. B) THE LD. AO HAS NOT PARTED WITH THE PURPORTED ASSESS MENT ORDER DATED 30.03.2015 AS THE SAME WAS LYING WITH HIS AS ON 01. 04.2015. THEREFORE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT TAKING INTO CONSIDER ATION ALL THE ABOVE STATED FACTS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. HENCE, THE SAME BE QUASHED. 3. INVITING ATTENTION TO PARA 4.3 OF THE ORDER, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT ON FACTS THE ISSUE HAS WRONGLY BEEN DECIDED AS ENTERING A TAX DEMAND O N 31.03.2015 CANNOT BE SAID TO BE LEADING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD BEEN PASSED ON 30.03.2015 AND THUS ON 30.03.2015 WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE DEPARTM ENT. 4. THE LD. SR.DR MR. SHIV SWAROOP SINGH RELYING UPO N THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT IN PAR A 4.3 HAS BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 4.2 BY THE CIT(A) AND HEAVY RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON IT. FOR READY REFERENCE PARA 4.2 AND 4.3 ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER : 4.2 IN THIS REGARD, THE ITO WARD-1(3), CHANDIGARH SUBMI TTED HIS REPORT AS UNDER, 2. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SH. JAGDEEP SINGH, FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13 WA S PASSED ON 30/03/2015 AS MENTIONED ON THE ORDER SHEET. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 01.04.2015 BY THE NOTICE SERVER AS PER RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ALSO UPLOADED ON A ST SYSTEM ON 31.03.2015 AND A SYSTEM GENERATED SHEET IN THIS CONNECTION IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND CONSIDERATION. 3. AS PER SECTION 153(L)(A) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, ' NO ORDER OF ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE UNDER SECTION 143 OR SECTI ON 144 AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EXPIRY O TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WH ICH THE INCOME V. A ASSESSABLE.' FROM THE PLAIN READING OF THE STATUTE, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THE ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE 31/03/2015. THE ENTRY ON ORDER SHEET AND COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ON AST MAKE IT CLEAR THE ASSESSMEN T AND COMPUTATIONS WERE COMPLETED ON 31/03/2015 AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT. T HE ACT IS SILENT ABOUT THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF SERVICE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS THE ASSES SMENT WAS ENTERED IN AST ON ITA 1309/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 3 OF 4 31/03/2015 CLEAR THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED WELL WIT HIN STIPULATED PERIOD. THUS THE PLEA THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSMENT WAS TIME BARRED IS NOT CORRECT. 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF 1 APPELLANT. AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS ENTERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN AST 31.03.2015, THEREFORE, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN LIMITATION PERIOD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS, THEREFORE DISMISS ED. 4.1 IT WAS ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. SR.DR THA T HE IS AWARE OF SOME PERSONAL CASE WHERE HE WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS AND SUPPORT THE DE PARTMENTAL STAND IN A WRIT PETITION FILED BY AN ASSESSEE PROBABLY IN THE NAME OF CITY HOSPITA LS VS DCIT AT THE DELHI HIGH COURT. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT HE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN EXPLAI NING BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT THAT THERE ARE OVER 100 ORDERS PASSED ON THE LAST DATE A ND THESE ARE PUT ON THE REGISTER FOR ONWARD DISPATCH BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES IN A REGISTER NA MED AS BNP REGISTER. THE REGISTER WAS CALLED FOR BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND IT WAS NOT ICED THAT THE ORDERS HAD BEEN PLACED IN THE CONTROL OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT, THOUGH THEY WERE DISPATCHED A WEEK THEREAFTER. THE FACT THAT THEY WERE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE AO WAS DEM ONSTRATED AND THUS THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER IS NOT A RELEVANT FACTOR. IT WAS ALSO HI S SUBMISSION THAT THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE PROCEDURE AS NOW ELECTRONICALLY COMMUNICATIONS ARE MADE. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO IS STAT ED TO HAVE BEEN PASSED ON 30.03.2015 AND MANY A TIMES, ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE BULKY ORDERS, T HE CALCULATIONS ETC. FOR RAISING THE TAX DEMAND ETC. ARE COMPUTERIZED AND ON THE BASIS OF CO MPUTER CALCULATIONS. FORM NO. 7 IS ISSUED WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT SHOW THE SAME DATE AND ONCE THIS IS UPLOADED, IT IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE AO AND THUS IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION TH AT THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR FULLY SUPPORT THE DEPARTMENTAL CASE. 5. THE LD. AR IN REPLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. SR.DR CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE INTERNAL PROCEDURE RELIED UPON ARE BASED ON IFS AND BUTS. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, ADMITTEDLY THE ASSES SEE HAS QUESTIONED THE FACTUM OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED ON 30.03.2015. THE LD. AR RELIES UPON THE FACT THAT AS PER THE COPY OF THE ORDER-SHEET MADE AVAILABLE AT P AGE 60, THERE IS NO SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE OR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO HIS SUBMI SSION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 01.04.2015 AS PER COPY OF FORM NO. 7 PAGE 63 AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. SR.DR RELIES UPON THE PERSONAL EXP ERIENCE WHERE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON A CERTAIN D ATE, HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND CONSIDERED ITA 1309/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 4 OF 4 THOUGH IN THOSE TIMES, THE PROCEDURE WAS MANUAL. I N THE PRESENT TIMES IT IS STATED THAT THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED ARE ELECTRONIC. THESE ISSUES A RE NOT COMING OUT FROM THE RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S, IT IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUES BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRE CTION TO ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC PROCEDURE FOLLOWED AND PASS SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IN THE EVEN TUALITY THE ASSESSEE FAILS ON THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, THE CIT(A) THEREAFTER, SHALL PROCEED TO DECIDE THE ISSUES ON MERITS AS THE ENTIRE ORDER HAS BEEN SET ASIDE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH JUNE,2019. SD/- ( ) (DIVA SINGH) ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ' '( )* +*% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT - 2. / THE RESPONDENT - 3. , / CIT 4. , ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. *-. / , /& , 012.3 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. .2 4 / GUARD FILE '( / BY ORDER, 5 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR