Sh. Puneet Bedi, Ludhiana V. DCIT, CC-I, Ludhiana

ITA 1426/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2682 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2018
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ BHALLA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Deemed dividend; Time period of passing order
• Section: 69C; 2(22)(e); 234B; 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH B, CHANDIGARH , ! . .., # $, %& BEFORE: SH.SANJAY GARG, JM & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, AM ./ ITA NO. 1426/CHD/2017 ( !) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 MR. PUNEET BEDI PROP. M/S V.V. BHALLA & CO. E-64, RISHI NAGAR, LUDHIANA THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-I LUDHIANA ./ PAN NO: AGAPB9766C / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. PANKAJ BHALLA / REVENUE BY : SHRI. G.S. PHANI KISHORE ! ' # / DATE OF HEARING : 28/11/2018 $%&'() # / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/02/2019 %*/ ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-5, LUDHIANA DT. 17/12/2014. 2. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. C.I.T.(A)-5, LUDHIANA HAS WRONGLY PASS ED THE ORDER U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AGAINST LAW AND FACTS O F THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-5 ERRED IN LAW & FACTS IN HOLDI NG THAT APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS FILED BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF 30 DAYS AS SPECIFIED U/S 249(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2.1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-5 ERRED IN LAW & FACTS IN ASSUM ING THE DATE OF SERVICE OF ORDER ON 18.11.2013 AGAINST ACTUAL DATE OF SERVICE I.E. 22.05.2014. 2.2 THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-5 ERRED IN LAW & FACTS IN FAILI NG TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS NO VALID SERVICE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 18.11.2 013 ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE LD. C.I.T. (A)-5, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN LA W & FACTS IN SUMMARILY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, IF ANY, IN FILLING APPEAL U/S 246A BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WITHOUT ANY BASE AND REASONS THEREOF. 4. THAT THE LD. C.I.T. (A)-5, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN LA W & FACTS IN CONFIRMING INCOME AT RS. 7,98,81,765/-WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 4.1 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN ASSUMING JURI SDICTION AND FRAMING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4.2 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN FRAMING ASSES SMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE 'ACT' WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HE ARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4.3 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER WITHOUT CARRYING OUT A VALID SERVICE OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE (S) UNDER SECTION 143(2)/142(1) OF THE 'ACT' HAD THEREIN GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND F ACTS OF THE CASE BY ASSUMING JURISDICTION AND FRAMING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 1 44 AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.4 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD MOST ARBITRARILY PROCEEDED WITH THE 'SPECIAL AUDIT' UNDE R SECTION 142(2A) OF THE 'ACT' WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4.5 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW & FACTS OF THE CASE IN REJECTING THE ' BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS' OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREIN TAKING RECOURSE TO ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE 'ACT'. 4.6 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AO G RAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE BY MOST ARBITRARILY DRAWING ADVER SE INFERENCES AS REGARDS THE CREDIT/CASH ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS, AND THERE IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,23,22,403/- U/S 68 OF THE 'ACT' IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE. 4.7 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AO G RAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE BY MOST ARBITRARILY MAKING AN ADD ITION OF RS.1,841/- AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.8 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AO G RAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE BY MOST ARBITRARILY MAKING AN ADD ITION OF RS. 9,330/- U/S 69C OF THE 'ACT' IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.9 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AO G RAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE BY MOST ARBITRARILY MAKING AN ADD ITION AS REGARDS THE IMPUGNED VALUE OF JEWELLERY OF RS. 47,74,720/- U/S 69A OF TH E ' ACT' IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.10 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AO G RAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE BY MOST ARBITRARILY ASSUMING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,72,30,326/- AS ' DEEMED DIVIDEND' U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 4.11 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AO G RAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE BY MOST ARBITRARILY MAKING AN ADD ITION OF RS. 2,70,28,821/- (SIC RS. 2,72,30,326/-) AS ' DEEMED DIVIDEND' U/S 2(22)(E) I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.12 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AO GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE BY MOST ARBITRARILY MAKING AN ADD ITION OF RS. 1,47,93,095/- AS ' DEEMED DIVIDEND' U/S 2(22)(E) IN THE HANDS OF THE A SSESSEE. 4.13 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AO GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN ASSESSING THE INCOME OF ASSESS EE AT RS. 7,98,81,765/- AS AGAINST LATTERS 'RETURNED INCOME' OF RS. 7,50,050/- . 4.13 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AO GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN RAISING A DEMAND OF RS. 3,37,9 3,470/- TOWARDS TAX' AND 'INTEREST' U/S 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE 'ACT' IN TH E HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 3. AT THE OUTSET THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY 918 DAYS. THE SIMILAR MATTER STANDS EXAMINED IN THE CASE OF PUNEET FASHIONS PVT. LTD. I N ITA NO. 1129 AND 1130/CHD/2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 AND 2011-12 RESP ECTIVELY. FURTHER THE SIMILAR MATTER IN THE CASE OF PUNEET FASHIONS PVT. LTD AND OTHERS ALSO STANDS ADJUDICATED IN ITA NO. 1065 TO 1067/CHD/2017 RELATI NG TO A.Y. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 BY ORDER DT. 31/10/2017. ACCORDINGLY THE DELAY IN F ILING THE APPEALS IS CONDONED ON THE SAME FOOTING AND OF THE SAME LINES, THE IMPU GNED ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) ARE HEREBY SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT DENOVO. 3 4. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES MAY ALSO INVOKE ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT MENTIONED UNDER CHAPTER XXI AND XXII AS DEEMED FIT WHILE GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT THEIR CASE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS SET ASID E. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- / (SANJAY GARG ) . .., # $ / ( DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) / JUDICIAL MEMBER %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 15/02/2019 AG COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT, 4. DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH, GUARD FILE