The Income Tax Officer, Muktsar V. Sh. Balbir Singh Legal Hair, Distt. Muktsar.

ITA 15/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73310 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 148; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (SMC). BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.15 & 16(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS:1998-99 & 1999-2000 PAN : INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH. BALBIR SINGH, WARD II(2), MUKTSAR. L/H OF SH. MOHINDER SINGH, VPO BHAGSAR, DISTT. MUKTSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.AMRIK CHAND, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH.P.N.ARORA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 14/03/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:14/03/2014 ORDER THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT TWO APPEALS AGAIN ST THE CONSOLIDATED IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A), BATHINDA, D ATED 01.10.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 & 1999-2000 ON THE FOLLOWI NG IDENTICAL GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT IN I NDIVIDUAL STATUS SH. BALBIR SINGH L/H FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 WAS BARRED BY TIME AS THESE WERE ISSU ED AFTER THE TIME PRESCRIBED U/S 149(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH EL APSED AT THE END OF SIX YEARS FROM THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY HOLDING THAT SINCE T HE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE BASIS OF DIRECTIONS OF THE CI T, THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ITA NOS. 15 & 16(ASR)/2014 2 U/S 148 IS BAD IN LAW. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRE D BY HOLDING THAT THE RESORT TO SECTION 150(1) CAN ONLY BE TAKEN FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION PURSUANT TO ANY APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHERE THE PROCEEDINGS RELATES T O THE SAME ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE QUITE SIMILAR TO THE C ASE OF SH. BALBIR SINGH S/O SH. MOHINDER SINGH VILL. BHJAGSAR IN WHIC H THE LD. CIT(A) BATHINDA HAS ALSO ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 TO 1999-20 00 IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, IN WHICH THE SECOND APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY. 4. ALTHOUGH THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS BELOW RS.3,00,000/- I.E. THE MONETARY LIMITED PRESCRIBE B Y THE HONBLE CBDT BUT THE APPEAL IS BEING FILED IN VIEW OF EXCEP TION MENTIONED IN PARA 5 OF THE HONBLE CBDTS INSTRUCTI ON NO.3/2011/F.NO.279/MISC.142/2007-ITJ DATED 09.02.20 11 AS FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR AS THAT OF SH. BALBIR SINGH S/O SH. MOHINDER SINGH, VILL. BAGSAR. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOS ED OFF.. 2, AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE RAISED A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE LESS THAN RS.3 LACS. THEREFORE, THE PRESENT APP EALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT MAY BE DISMISSED, AS THE SAME ARE NOT M AINTAINABLE BEING CONTRARY TO CBDTS INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 DATED 0 9.02.2011. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NOS. 15 & 16(ASR)/2014 3 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE LEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS, ESPECIALLY CBDTS INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011, DATED 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. AS PER RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS ON 09.01.2014 AFTER THE ISSUANCE O F CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011, DATED 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. THUS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE H AS FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE SAID CBDT INSTRU CTION NO. 3 OF 2011, WHICH IS EFFECTIVE FROM 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE SAID INSTRUCTION OF CBDT IS BINDING UP ON THE DEPARTMENT AND THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED CONTRARY TO THE SAID INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE CBDT. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY T HE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14TH MARCH, 2014. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14TH MARCH, 2014 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. BALBIR SINGH, VPO BHAGSAR, DISTT. MUKTSAR. 2. THE ITO WARD II(2), MUKTSAR. 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA. 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER