ITO, Chandigarh V. Sh. Jaswant Singh Mann (HUF), Chandigarh

ITA 166/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 16621514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: A K JINDAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 166/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE ITO, VS SHRI JASWANT SINGHMANN(HUF) WARD 4(4), HOUSE NO. 266, CHANDIGARH. SECTOR 35-A, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AACHJ5272R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K.JINDAL DATE OF HEARING : 27.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.10.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2 CHANDIGARH DATED 31.12.2014 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, CHALLENGING THE DELETION O F ADDITION OF RS. 88,97,365/- AS AGRICULTURE INCOME. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE DECLARED AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 94,92,365/- IN I TS RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY TREATING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 88,97,365/- AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRE D APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN WHICH IT HAD RAIS ED 9 GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BUT DID NOT RAISE SPECIFIC GROUN D 2 RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 88,97,365/-. THE APPEA L WAS DECIDED VIDE ORDER DATED 07.06.2010 IN WHICH THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE GROUNDS ARE NO T VERY SPECIFIC THEREFORE, HE WOULD ADDRESS THE ISSUE TAKEN UP IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH LED TO ADDITION OF RS. 88,97,365/-. THE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS). 3. THE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE ITAT CONTENDING THEREIN THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD NO AUT HORITY TO PASS ANY ORDER IN THIS REGARD BECAUSE NO SPECIFI C GROUND WAS RAISED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE TRI BUNAL IN ITA 1168/2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 24.07.2012 RESTOR ED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) WIT H DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE A ND OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE ADDI TIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, IF SO ADVISED. THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) WAS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL DENOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE, AGAIN IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDI NGS, DID NOT RAISE ANY SPECIFIC GROUND OF APPEAL IN THIS REGARD, SO THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.20 13 AND ADDITION WAS RESTORED. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN PREF ERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 21.05.2014 IN ITA 172/2014. THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE FRESH GROUND OF APPEAL UNDER THE WRONG IMPRESSION AND JUSTICE CANNOT BE DENIED ON TECHNICA L 3 GROUND. THEREFORE, AGAIN MATTER WAS REMANDED TO TH E LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, HAS TAKEN UP THE MATTER AGAIN AND NOTED THAT ASSESS EE FILED APPROPRIATE GROUND OF APPEAL IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), FOLLOWING THE O RDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR DATED 07.06.2010 AND REPRODUCING TH E SAME IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, DELETED THE ADDITION. 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THE MATTER REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION AT TH E LEVEL OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT EARLIER, TWO ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WERE SET ASIDE B Y THE TRIBUNAL IN DIFFERENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) . THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 07.06.2010 OF THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) WAS SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 24.07.2012 GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO RA ISE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IN THIS REGARD. THEREF ORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DATED 07.06.2010 DOES NOT SURVIVE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(APPEALS) DATED 07.06.2010 IS NO MORE IN EXISTEN CE AND CANNOT BE RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) F OR THE PURPOSE OF DELETING THE ADDITION. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CLEARLY SHOWS DISOBEDIENCE AND DEFIANC E TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN EARLIER APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS. ONCE ORDER DATED 07.06.2010 OF THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) WAS SET ASIDE, IT COULD NOT BE FOLLOWE D BY 4 THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR ANY PURPOSES, WHAT TO SAY OF DECIDING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AFRESH IN ACCORD ANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. CIT(A PPEALS) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDINGS OF HIS OWN AND HAS MEREL Y FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR DATED 07.06.2 010 WHICH IS NO MORE A QUASI-JUDICIAL ORDER IN EXISTENC E. FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPELLATE ORDER HAS GI VEN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GRO UND OF APPEAL WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE TRIB UNAL, HOWEVER, HAS NOT GIVEN ANY LICENCE TO ASSESSEE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT TO RAISE THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. SIMILARLY, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON FILING THE ADDIT IONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEA L OR REJECTION OF THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL BY GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND SHOULD HAVE ALSO REQUIRED TO PASS A REA SONED ORDER FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OR REF USING TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DID NOT PASS ANY ORDER EITHER FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL OR REFUSING TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL GROUND OF AP PEAL. THUS, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO SUFFER FROM THIS INFIRMITY. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE MATTER REQUIRES RE- CONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)- 2 CHANDIGARH. 5 6. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER IN ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) WITH DIRECTION TO PASS THE ORDER A FRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS WAS DIRECTED IN THE EARLIER APPELLATE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) ON FILING OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, SHALL PASS NECESSARY ORDER ON ADMIS SION OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL OR REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. HE SHALL PASS REASONED ORDER BY GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE AS WELL AS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE DIRECT THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) THAT HE SHOULD STRICTLY FOLLOW THE ORD ERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND SHALL PASS THE ORDER STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BECAUSE THE MATTER IS ALREADY DELAYED IN THE EARLIER TWO ROUND PROCEEDINGS, BECAU SE OF HIS INACTION IN THE MATTER. WE HOPE LD. CIT(APPEAL S) WILL DO THE NEEDFUL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29 TH OCT., 2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD