V.GEETHALAKSHMI, COIMBTORE V. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE

ITA 1360/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4625 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D B ENCH, CHENNAI, CAMP AT COIMBATORE ... , ! '#, $ #% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1360/CHNY/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) MRS. V. GEETHALAKSHMI, LEGAL HEIR AND WIFE OF SRI. G. VIJAYAKUMAR, K.G. HOUSE, NEW NO.126, ARTS COLLEGE ROAD, COIMBATORE 641 018. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE,-1, COIMBATORE (PAN: ABNPV 6659E) ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ABANI KANTA NAYAK, CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 05.02.2020 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.02.2020 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 (IN SH ORT THE PCIT) COIMBATORE DATED 06.03.2019 PASSED U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND PERTAINS TO THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015. 2 I.T.A. NO. 1360/19 2. SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPIRED ON 27.08.2017 AND SHOW C AUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 09.08.2018 IN THE NAME OF DEAD PERSON. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS A JURISDICTIONAL NOTICE AND THEREFORE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE DEATH PERSON IS I NVALID. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT T HE AO CALLED FOR THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.57 OF THE ACT AND THE MATTER WAS ALSO DISCUSSED WITH REPRESENTATIVE O F THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAUSE THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED ANY FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE AN ERRONEOUS ORDER. THE LD. COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KRISHNA CAPBOX LTD, 372 ITR 310 . THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MAD RAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ALAMELU VEERAPPAN VS. ITO, 304 CTR 512 . 3. WE HEARD SHRI ABANI KANTA NAYAK, THE LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE EXPI RED ON 27.08.2017 AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 9.8.2018. THE QUES TION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSU ED BY THE PCIT IS A JURISDICTIONAL NOTICE OR NOT?. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PCIT IS NOT BOUND TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S.26 3 OF THE ACT. IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE PCIT GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD. IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WA S GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 3 I.T.A. NO. 1360/19 THIS VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDG MENT OF APEX COURT IN CIT VS. HUKUMCHAND MOHANLAL (1971) 82 ITR 624 AND GITA DEVI AGGARWAL VS. CIT, (1970) 76 ITR 496 . 4. NOW COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE AO A DMITTEDLY CALLED FOR THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED U/S.57 OF TH E ACT. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS U/S.136 OF THE ACT. WHEN THE AO PASSES A QUASI-JUDICIAL ORDER, HE IS BOUND TO BRING ON RECORD THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND RECORD HIS OWN REASONS. UNLESS THE REASONS ARE RECORDED, THE APPELLATE OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITIES MAY NOT ABLE TO APPRECIATE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH STATU TORY PROCEEDINGS. A QUASI JUDICIAL ORDER HAS TO SPEAK ITSELF WITHOUT ANY FURTHER MATERIAL TAKEN ON RECORD. THE APPRECIATION OF THE FACT SHALL BE R EFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO TO THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD SHALL BE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I TSELF. THERE SHOULD BE A LIVE LINK TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AN D APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO. THIS IS LACKING IN THIS CASE. THE SUPREME C OURT IN TOYOTA MOTORS CORPORATION CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THAT THE AO HAS TO RECORD HIS OWN REASONINGS. THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CALLING FOR THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE IN RECORDING HIS OWN REASONI NG IS NOTHING BUT AN ERROR WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE R EVENUE. THEREFORE THE PCIT HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED HIS JURISDICTION U/S.263 O F THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE 4 I.T.A. NO. 1360/19 LD. PCIT GAVE SOME DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ANY DIRECTION HAS TO BE GIVEN ONLY AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WHILE CONFIRMING THE IMP UGNED ORDER OF THE PCIT, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECONSIDE R THE ISSUE INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY ANY OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE PCIT. THE JUDGMENTS OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COUR T AND MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF KRISHNA CAPBOX LTD AND ALAMELU VEERAPPAN (SUPRA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CAS E IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1360/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 STA NDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 5 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 AT CAMP AT COIMBATORE. SD/- SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER COIMBATORE /DATED, THE 5 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. KV #$ %&'& /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. * ( )/CIT(A) 4. * /CIT 5. &+, - /DR 6. ,./ /GF