SHRI UMMED SINGH KONTAYA, BHARATPUR V. ITO, Ajmer

ITA 230/JPR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 23023114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K MEENA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

1 ITA 230(2)-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH A JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI N.L. KALRA ITA NO. 230/JP/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2004-05. SHRI UMMED SINGH KONTAYA, VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFI CER, C/O J.N. GOYAL & COMPANY, CA, WARD 2(2), C-162, RANJIT NAGAR, BHARATPUR. AJMER. ITA NO. 232/JP/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2004-05. SHRI UMA SHANKAR RAJORIA, VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFF ICER, C/O J.N. GOYAL & COMPANY, CA, WARD 2(2), C-162, RANJIT NAGAR, BHARATPUR. AJMER. (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSION. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.K. MEENA DATE OF HEARING :03.8.2011. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.8.2011. ORDER DATE OF ORDER : 19/08/2011. PER R.K. GUPTA, J.M. THESE ARE TWO APPEALS BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES A GAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT (A) PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2004-05. 2. VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN THESE TWO APP EALS. HOWEVER, THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154. IN FACT, THE APPEAL IN CASE OF SHRI UMMED SIN GH KONTAYA WAS DECIDED ON 25.09.2009 AND APPEAL IN CASE OF SHRI UMA SHANKAR R AJORIA WAS DECIDED ON 29.09.2009. THEREAFTER LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE MOVED APPLIC ATION UNDER SECTION 154 IN BOTH THE 2 CASES AND CITED VARIOUS INFIRMITIES IN THE ORDERS P ASSED ORIGINALLY BY LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS FOUND THA T ALL THE OBJECTIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY HIM WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL ORIGINALLY AND, THEREFORE, NO MISTAKE IS APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECOR D WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 154. THEREFORE, RECTIFICATION APPLICATIONS WERE DIS MISSED. 3. NOW BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE IN APPEAL HERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THOUGH W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS ARE PLACED ON RECORD BY WHICH IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE APPE ALS MAY BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. D/R HAS STATED THAT LD. C IT (A) HAS PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER ORIGINALLY AND AFTER TAKING ALL THE OBJECTIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE HAS DISMISSED THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION ALSO. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A) PASSED ORIGINALLY, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD AND CONSIDERING THE RECTIFICAT ORY ORDERS UNDER SECTION 154, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DISCUSSED ALL THE MATERIALS WHILE PASSING ORDER ORIGINALLY. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOTED THAT VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED. THE REAFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DETAILED ORDER OF THE AO WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) FOUND THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS AS PER PROVISIONS O F LAW. COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED WAS SUPPLIED AND IT WAS FOUND THAT CLAIM OF INTERES T ON BORROWING AMOUNT WAS BOGUS. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT SIM ILAR CLAIM WAS ALSO MADE IN 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHICH WAS FOUND BOGUS AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF AO WAS CONFIRMED. 7. NOW ASSESSEE SEEKS RECTIFICATION OF THIS VERY OR DER WHICH WAS A SPEAKING ORDER. 8. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), WE FIND NO MISTAKE IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER. IF THERE IS ANY GRIEVANCE, THE ASSESSEE COU LD HAVE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) ORIGINALLY PASSED UNDER SECTION 256(6). SIMILA R ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN BOTH THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEES AND ON SIMILAR FACTS THE APP LICATION UNDER SECTION 154 HAS BEEN DISMISSED. AS STATED ABOVE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE AP PARENT IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED, THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED I N REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 154. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) I S CONFIRMED IN BOTH THE CASES. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE DISM ISSED. 10. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 .8.2011. SD/- SD/- ( N.L. KALRA ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR, D/- COPY FORWARDED TO :- SHRI UMMED SINGH KONTAYA, AJMER. SHRI UMA SHANKAR RAJORIA, AJMER. THE ITO WARD 2(2), AJMER. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 230(2)/JP/2010) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR. 4