Sandeep Kumar, Khanna V. ITO, W-4, Khanna

ITA 1359/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1332 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: KULDEEP SINGH ITP
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH SMC CHANDIGARH !', # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM ./ ITA NO. 1359/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR, HOUSE NO. 130, VILLAGE MAJRI RASULRA, KHANNA. VS THE ITO, WARD 4, KHANNA. ./ PAN NO: AUIPK8861B / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KULDEEP SINGH, ITP # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, CIT-DR $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 02.09.2019 '()* ! &/ D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.09.2019 $%/ ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 28.09.20 18 OF CIT(A)-2, LUDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ASSAILED ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE APART FROM AGITATING THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A ) ON MERITS, HAS ALSO ASSAILED THE ORDERS ON THE GROUNDS OF WANT OF A VALID JURISDICTION. ACCORDINGLY, WITH THE CON SENT OF THE PARTIES, SAID GROUND IS FIRST ADDRESSED. FOR R EADY REFERENCE, THE GROUND IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: ITA 1359/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 3 1. IN THIS CASE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 HAVE BEEN WRONGLY INITIATED. 2. THE LD. AR MR. KULDEEP SINGH APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS APPEARING BEFORE THE ITAT FOR THE FIRST TIME. IT WAS FAIRLY CONCEDED BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE THE SAID GROUND BEFORE T HE CIT(A), IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS HIS LIMITED PRA YER THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE CIT(A) SO AS TO P ASS THE ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE RECORDS. 3. THE LD. CIT-DR SUBMITTED THAT HE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE REMAND AS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE, HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GI VE ANY MEANINGFUL INPUT. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT BEFORE THE CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO ON JURISDICTION. IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRAYER OF THE PA RTIES BEFORE THE BENCH, SINCE THE SAID ISSUE IS NOW ARISING FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE THE IT AT, CONSEQUENTLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RELEVANT DISCUSS ION ON THE SAID ISSUE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPE AKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER HEARING THE ASSE SSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN INTERESTS IS DIRECTED TO EN SURE FULL ITA 1359/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 3 OF 3 AND PROPER COMPLIANCES AND NOT TO ABUSE THE TRUST R EPOSED AS IN THE EVENTUALITY OF ABUSE OF THE TRUST REPOSED , THE CIT(A) WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS AN ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH SEPT.,2019. SD/- ( !' ) (DIVA SINGH) # / JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM (+ ! ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / / CIT 4. $ / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , & 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7% / GUARD FILE (+ $ / BY ORDER, 8 # / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR