ITO- 5(1), Lucknow V. Shri Anil Kumar Goel, Lucknow

ITA 144/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5693 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K R RASTOGI
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.144 & 145/LKW/2013 A.YRS.:1995 - 96 & 96 - 97 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 5(1), LUCKNOW. VS. SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOEL, 51, G. B. MARG, LUCKNOW. PAN:AEOPG5987Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NOS.04 & 05/LKW/2013 (IN ITA NOS.144 & 145/LKW/2013) A.YRS.:1995 - 96 & 96 - 97 SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOEL, 51, G. B. MARG, LUCKNOW. PAN:AEOPG5987Q VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 5(1), LUCKNOW. (OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR, D.R. ASSESSEE BY SHRI K. R. RASTOGI, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 24/02/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 8 /02/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND BOTH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) - II, LUCKNOW BOTH DATED 31/01/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96 AND 96 - 97. BOTH THE APPEALS AND CROSS O BJECTIONS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN BOTH THESE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. THESE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT WHETHER UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING COMBINED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT FOR TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. A.Y. 1995 - 96 AND 1996 - 97 CALLING UPON THE APPELLANT TO S UBMIT HIS RETURN. 2. THAT PRESENT ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A. Y. 1995 - 96 PASSED U/S 147/144 OF I.T. ACT, BASED ON THE BASIS OF CERTIFIED COPY OF COMBINED NOTICE U/S 148 OF I.T. ACT FOR TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. A. Y. 1995 - 96 AND 1996 - 97 ARE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IS A LEGAL ISSUE AND THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) . HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS RELEVANT FOR DECIDING THIS ISSUE ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE NOT BE ADMITTED . 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND SINCE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LEGAL ISSUE, FOR WHICH THE FACTS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (SUPRA). 6. REGARDING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT 3 RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MOHD. AYUB VS INCOME - TAX OFFICER [2012] 346 ITR 30 (ALL) . HE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS HELD BY HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THIS CASE THAT NOTICE U/S 148 IS TO BE ISSUED FOR EACH YEAR SEPARATELY AND WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED COMBINED NOTICE FOR ALL THE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS, REASSESS MENT IS NOT VALID. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED A COMBINED NOTICE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 7. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE HAD NOTHING TO SAY REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MOHD. AYUB VS INCOME - TAX OFFICER [2012] 346 ITR 30 (ALL) IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE FIND THAT AS PER THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 20/03/2002, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 29 OF PAPER BOOK, A COMBINED NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY HIM FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 9 5 - 96 & 96 - 97. AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MOHD. AYUB VS INCOME - TAX OFFICER [2012] 346 ITR 30 (ALL) CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT VALID W HERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED A COMBINED NOTICE U/S 148 BECAUSE AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS TO BE ISSUED FOR EACH YEAR SEPARATELY. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND TH ESE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION S ARE ALLOWED FOR BOTH THE YEARS AND AS A RESULT, THE REASSESSMENT IS QUASHED AS INVALID IN BOTH THE YEARS. 4 9. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISI ON IN ABOVE PARA REGARDING ADDITIONAL GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE YEARS, THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION S AND VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL S DO NOT CALL FOR ANY ADJUDICATION. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE ALLOWED AND THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 8 /02/2014 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW