Sunil Kumar, V. DCIT,

ITA 254/RAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0383 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A RAKSHIT
• Assessee Lawyers: V K JALAN
• Section: 142(1); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI CIRCUIT BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 254 TO 256/RAN/2014 (ASST. YEARS : 2006-07 TO 2008-09) SHRI SUNIL KUMAR, GANDHI ROAD, DHANBAD. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, DHANBAD. PAN NO. AEMPK 3275 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V.K. JALAN FCA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A. RAKSHIT - DR DATE OF HEARING : 03/11/2015. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/11/2015. O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS), DHANBAD, DATED 31/03/2014 PASSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 6-07 TO 2008-09. 2. IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE SOLE ISS UE INVOLVED IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN INITIATING T HE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 3 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE O RDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS OBSE RVED AS UNDER:- 4. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IN THESE APPEALS IS REGAR DING INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. IT 2 ITA NOS. 254-256/RAN/2014 HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT NO REASONS FOR INITIATION OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMUNICATED. FROM THE FACTS OF T HE CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATIO N THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE INVESTMENTS OF RS. 2,50,000/-, R S. 7,50,000/- AND RS. 1,12,475/- (THERE IS MINOR VARIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN THE THIRD POLITY IN THE THREE ASSESSM ENT YEARS) WHEREAS, IN THE BALANCE SHEETS, INVESTMENT OF RS. 2 ,50,000/- ONLY WAS DISCLOSED. ACCORDINGLY, HE HAD VERY SPECIFIC I NFORMATION LEADING TO BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961WERE INITIATED. THE APPELLANT MADE NO COM PLIANCE INITIALLY AND LATER SUBMITTED THAT RETURNS FILED EA RLIER MAY BE TREATED AS RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO SUCH NOTICE S. THEREAFTER, THE AO DULY ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ALONG WITH LETTER AS TO WHY I NVESTMENT IN INSURANCE POLICIES OF RS. 8,61,829/- NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEETS, SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INVEST MENT. THEREFORE, THE ASSERTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT REAS ONS WERE NOT COMMUNICATED IS BASELESS AND CONTRARY TO FACTS. TH EREAFTER, THE AO ISSUED ANOTHER SHOW-CAUSE IN WHICH IT WAS MENTIO NED THAT SINCE COMPLIANCE WAS NOT MADE OF EARLIER NOTICES, O NE MORE OPPORTUNITY WAS BEING GIVEN TO EXPLAIN WHY ADDITION S OF THE ABOVE AMOUNTS SHOULD NOT BE MADE. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT NO REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WERE SUPPLI ED TO THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF ASKING FOR THE SAME FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH FACT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HIS ORDER. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. TREND ELECTRONICS REPORTED IN 2015-TIOL-2393-HC- MUM-IT HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHEN AN ORDER IS PASSED IN RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN ABSENCE OF REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUING A RE-OPENING NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 148 BEING FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN SOUGHT FOR, IS BAD I N LAW. HENCE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE QUASHED. 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SU PPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3 ITA NOS. 254-256/RAN/2014 6 . WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) HAS STATED IN HIS ORDER THAT NO REASONS FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WERE COMMUNICATED T O THE ASSESSEE. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE REASON FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSE SSMENT WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. TREND ELECTRONICS (SUPRA), THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TO BE ALLO WED AND THE REASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 29/12/2010 IN ALL THE YEA RS UNDER CONSIDERATION IS TO BE QUASHED. WE, THEREFORE, QUAS HED THE REASSESSMENT ORDERS, DATED 29/12/2010 FOR ALL THE Y EARS UNDER APPEAL AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 . IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ON GROUND B OF THE APPEAL , THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE MER ITS OF THE ADDITIONS HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND HENCE, DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE H EARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 04 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015 AT RANCHI. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 04 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER 4 ITA NOS. 254-256/RAN/2014 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 03/11/2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 04/11/2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 04/11/2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 04/11/2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 04/11/2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04/11/2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 04/11/2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER