Smt Sakina Bohra, Neemuch V. The ITO, Neemuch

ITA 140/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 14022714 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: H P VERMA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.138/IND/2010 A.Y.2005-06 SMT. JUZAR HUSSAIN NEEMUCH PAN ABIPH-1142-B APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH RESPONDENT ITA NO.139/IND/2010 A.Y.2005-06 ALI ASGAR NEEMUCH PAN AARPB-5269-M APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH RESPONDENT 2 ITA NO. 140/IND/2010 A.Y.2005-06 SAKINA BOHRA NEEMUCH PAN AOHPB-7537-G APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH RESPONDENT APPELLANTS BY : SHRI H.P. VERMA AND SHRI ASHISH GOYAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K. MITRA O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE THREE APPEALS ARE BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), UJJAIN, DATED 19. 1.2010 ON THE GROUND THAT THE LEARNED LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER WITH REGARD TO REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND AND INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT. 2. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI H.P. VERMA AND SHRI ASHISH GOYAL CON TENDED THAT FACTS OF THE IMPUGNED APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL TO EACH OTHER, 3 THEREFORE, THESE CAN BE HEARD AND DISPOSED OF TOGET HER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SOLD BY SMT. S ITABAI RAJARAM GWALA TO FOUR PERSONS, NAMELY, SHRI JUZAR A LI, ALI ASAR, SMT. SAKINA AND HUZEFA ALIA MUZAFFAR. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS WITHOUT CONSIDE RING THE FACTS AND AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE EXCESS BANK DEPOSIT WAS RELATED TO THE TRANSACTION SO MADE. BEFORE GOI NG INTO MERITS OF THE CASE, IT WAS STRONGLY PLEADED THAT ST ATEMENT OF VARIOUS PERSONS/WITNESSES WAS RECORDED BUT NO OPPOR TUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THEM. ON QUESTIONING FROM BENCH WHETHER ANY REQUEST WAS MADE , THE LD. COUNSEL INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 13 OF THE PAP ER BOOK, A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE LEARNED ITO WHICH WAS DULY RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE ON 14 TH DECEMBER, 2009 (OFFICE SEAL OF ITO AFFIXED). IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN IDENTICAL SITUATION, THE INDORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. TASNEEM DAIRKEE VS. ITO; ITA NO. 141/IND/2006 ORDER DATED 20.3.2010, THE ISS UE WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL 4 REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT CONTROVERT THE GENUINENESS O F THE AFORESAID LETTER. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SELLER AND THE WITNESSES, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATE MENTS, HAS TENDERED THAT THEY DID NOT GO THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE DEEDS WHICH WAS SIGNED BY THEM. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THA T DURING RECORDING OF THEIR STATEMENTS, THE PURCHASER DENIED THAT ANY ADVANCE WAS GIVEN FOR THE DEAL AND ONE GUUDU WAS CL AIMED TO HAVE TENDERED THAT HE WAS NEVER PRESENT AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF THE DEAL AND SHRI SITABAI CLAIMED T O HAVE STATED THAT BEFORE REGISTRATION GUDDU DALAL INTRODUCED HER TO PURCHASES. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF FACTS NA RRATED BEFORE US AND THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ALSO WI THOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, WE REMAND ALL THESE AP PEALS TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATIO N IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE RES PECTIVE ASSESSEES. ALL THE THREE ASSESSEES MAY ALSO BE PERM ITTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES/REQUIRED PERSONS, IF AN Y REQUEST IS 5 MADE BY THEM. ALL THE THREE ASSESSEES ARE AT LIBERT Y TO FURNISH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CLAIM. FINALLY, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AT THE CO NCLUSION OF HEARING ON 7.4.2011. (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 7.4.2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, G UARD FILE DN/- 6