Parveen Arora, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1700/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 170020114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEVI SHARAN SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: UMANG SAHA I AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Competent authority; Assessment record; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH SMC SMC SMC SMC : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE , VICE , VICE , VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO . .. . 1700/DEL/2013 1700/DEL/2013 1700/DEL/2013 1700/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2000 2000 2000 2000 - -- - 01 0101 01 SMT. PARVEEN ARORA, SMT. PARVEEN ARORA, SMT. PARVEEN ARORA, SMT. PARVEEN ARORA, E EE E- -- -2, SHRADHANAND MARG, 2, SHRADHANAND MARG, 2, SHRADHANAND MARG, 2, SHRADHANAND MARG, DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI 110 006. 110 006. 110 006. 110 006. PAN : ACTPA1933D. PAN : ACTPA1933D. PAN : ACTPA1933D. PAN : ACTPA1933D. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX OFFICER, OFFICER, OFFICER, OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -28(1), 28(1), 28(1), 28(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS CROSS CROSS CROSS - -- - OBJECTION OBJECTION OBJECTION OBJECTION NO NONO NO .175/DEL/2013 .175/DEL/2013 .175/DEL/2013 .175/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000 2000 2000 2000 - -- - 01 01 01 01 INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -28(1), 28(1), 28(1), 28(1), ROOM NO.211, ROOM NO.211, ROOM NO.211, ROOM NO.211, DRUM SHAPE BUILDING, DRUM SHAPE BUILDING, DRUM SHAPE BUILDING, DRUM SHAPE BUILDING, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 002. 110 002. 110 002. 110 002. VS. VS. VS. VS. SMT. PARVEEN ARORA, SMT. PARVEEN ARORA, SMT. PARVEEN ARORA, SMT. PARVEEN ARORA, E EE E- -- -2, S 2, S 2, S 2, SHRADHANAND MARG, HRADHANAND MARG, HRADHANAND MARG, HRADHANAND MARG, DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI 110 006. 110 006. 110 006. 110 006. PAN : ACTPA1933D. PAN : ACTPA1933D. PAN : ACTPA1933D. PAN : ACTPA1933D. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI UMANG SAHAI AGGARWAL, ADVOCATE. REVENUE BY : SHRI DEVI SHARAN SINGH, SR.DR. DATE OF HEARING : 16.07.2015 16.07.2015 16.07.2015 16.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.08.2015 03.08.2015 03.08.2015 03.08.2015 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CROSS-OBJECTION BY T HE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CI T(A)-XXV, NEW DELHI DATED 16 TH MARCH, 2012. THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA-1700/D/2013 & C.O.175/D/2013 2 IT ITIT ITA NO.1700/DEL/2013 A NO.1700/DEL/2013 A NO.1700/DEL/2013 A NO.1700/DEL/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL : ASSESSEES APPEAL : ASSESSEES APPEAL : ASSESSEES APPEAL :- -- - 2. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LE GAL ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.2 OF ITS APPE AL WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- THAT THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE WRONGLY INI TIATED AND UPHOLDED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF I.T. AC T WITHOUT ANY VALID REASONS AND WITHOUT ANY INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND BY ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE RECORDI NG REASONS. THUS THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(APPEAL S) IS TOTALLY WRONG, ILLEGAL AND EXCESSIVE IN NATURE. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE, TH E ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED WITH THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(1), NE W DELHI AND HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR WITH INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(1), NEW DELHI AND WAS ASSESSED ORIGINAL LY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE, I.E ., INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(1), NEW DELHI. HOWEVER, LATER ON, THE REASONS FOR REOPENING WERE RECORDED AND NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE AC T FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS ISSUED BY ANOTHER ASSESSING OFFICER, I.E., INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-19(4), NEW DELHI. HE SUBMITTED TH AT LATER ON, THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WERE TRANSFERRED AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS F RAMED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(1), NEW DELHI. HE SUBMITTED THAT RECORDING OF REASONS AND ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WERE ILLEGAL IN THIS CASE AS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-19(4), NEW DELHI HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE WHOLE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 WERE VITIATED AND SHOULD BE HELD V OID. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF LT.COL. PARAMJIT SINGH VS. CIT AND ANOTHER [1996] 220 ITR 446 (P&H). 4. LEARNED DR HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CHARTERED ACCOU NTANT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2007 POINTED OUT REGARDING THE CORRECT ITA-1700/D/2013 & C.O.175/D/2013 3 DESIGNATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, ACCORDINGLY, T HE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-19(4), NEW DELHI HAS TRANSFERRED THE ASSE SSMENT RECORDS TO THE CORRECT ASSESSING OFFICER, I.E., INCOME TAX OFFI CER, WARD-28(1), NEW DELHI AND THERE REMAINS NO ILLEGALITY WHATSOEVER. HE REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE AP PELLATE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERU SED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A). I FIND THAT THE BASIC FACTS IN THE CASE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED WITH INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(1), NEW DELHI AND HAS ACCORDINGLY FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2000-01 AND WAS ASSESSED AS SUCH ORIGINALLY BY THE INCOME TAX OFF ICER, WARD- 28(1), NEW DELHI. HOWEVER, THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND THE NOTICE U/S 148 FOR REOPENING WERE ISSUED BY I NCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-19(4), NEW DELHI, LATER ON, ASSESSMENT R ECORDS WERE TRANSFERRED AND REASSESSMENT WAS FINALLY FRAMED U/S 147 BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(1), NEW DELHI. THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJ AB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LT.COL. PARAMJIT SINGH (SUP RA), WHEREIN IT IS HELD AS UNDER:- HELD, THAT IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THE FILE OF THE PET ITIONER PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89 HAD NOT BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, PUNE, TO THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR. AS A MA TTER OF FACT, NO ORDER OF TRANSFER HAD BEEN PASSED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE ACT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR AND, THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS FOR REASSESSMENT WERE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE NOT ICE WAS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUN JAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN LT.COL. PARAMJIT SINGH (SUPRA), THE I SSUE IS DECIDED IN ITA-1700/D/2013 & C.O.175/D/2013 4 FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS HELD THAT SINCE THE REC ORDING OF REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT U/S 148 AND THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED BY A DIFFERENT ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE IL LEGALITY GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 AND, THEREFORE, THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS OF REASSESSMENT WERE INVALID AND THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IS ACCORDINGLY C ANCELLED. 7. IN VIEW OF MY DECISION IN HOLDING THAT THE REASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 WERE NOT VALID IN THIS CASE, THE OT HER LEGAL CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE REASONS FO R REOPENING RECORDED ON MECHANICAL BASIS, AND THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION, ARE NOT A DJUDICATED UPON. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED A S ABOVE. REVENUES CROSS REVENUES CROSS REVENUES CROSS REVENUES CROSS- -- -OBJECTION NO.175/DEL/2013 : OBJECTION NO.175/DEL/2013 : OBJECTION NO.175/DEL/2013 : OBJECTION NO.175/DEL/2013 :- -- - 9. THE GROUNDS OF THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE A RE MERELY SUPPORTIVE TO THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND AR E ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AS ABOVE AND THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD AUGUST, 2015. SD/- ( (( ( G. G.G. G. C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA ) )) ) VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VK. ITA-1700/D/2013 & C.O.175/D/2013 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE : SMT. PARVEEN ARORA, SMT. PARVEEN ARORA, SMT. PARVEEN ARORA, SMT. PARVEEN ARORA, E EE E- -- -2, SHRADHANAND MARG, DELHI 2, SHRADHANAND MARG, DELHI 2, SHRADHANAND MARG, DELHI 2, SHRADHANAND MARG, DELHI 110 006. 110 006. 110 006. 110 006. 2. REVENUE : INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- -- -28(1), 28(1), 28(1), 28(1), ROOM NO.211, DRUM SHAPE BUILDING, ROOM NO.211, DRUM SHAPE BUILDING, ROOM NO.211, DRUM SHAPE BUILDING, ROOM NO.211, DRUM SHAPE BUILDING, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 11 1111 110 002. 0 002. 0 002. 0 002. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR