M/s Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust, New Delhi V. ADIT(E), New Delhi

ITA 2864/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61677 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S MOHANTY DRS
• Assessee Lawyers: VINOD RAWAL CAS
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI) SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.2862 TO 2867/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2000-01 TO 2005-06) M/S. SHRI SANATAN DHARAM MANDIR TRUST, VS. ADIT (E ), H BLOCK, UTTAM NAGAR, TRUST CIRCLE IV, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN : AABTS9051J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJESH JAIN & SHRI VINOD RAWAL, CAS REVENUE BY : MS. S. MOHANTY, DRS ORDER PER BENCH : ALL THESE APPEALS EMANATE FROM THE ORDER OF THE CI T (APPEALS)-XXI, NEW DELHI DATED 28.04.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2005-06. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE COM MON WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN HOLDING THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED BY THE A.O. BY PROVIDING THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NOS.2862 TO 2867/DEL./2011 2 4. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN DISMISSING GROUND NUMBERS 1 TO 6 WITHOUT PROPER CON SIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. 5. THAT THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF RUDIMENTARY PRINCIPLES O F CONTEMPORARY JURISPRUDENCE. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER ANY /ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BEFORE THE CIT (A) FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2000- 01 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER :- GROUND NO.1:- THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE LD. AO IS BAD IN LAW AND HAS BEEN PASSED IN HASTE. GROUND NO.2:- THAT THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN NOT PROV IDING THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND HAS PASSED T HE ORDER AGAINST THE RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND IS LIABLE T O BE QUASHED ON MERITS. GROUND NO.3:- THAT THE LD. AO HAS PASSED THE ASSESS MENT ORDER ON HEARSAY CREATING A SUPERFLUOUS AND VAGUE DEMAND. GROUND NO.4:- THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT IS UNMANNERED, UNJUDICIOUS AN D BAD IN LAW. GROUND NO.5:- ADDITION OF RS.22,73,315/- MADE TO DO NATION RECEIVED BY THE LD. AO IS BASED ON SURMISE AND CONJ ECTURE AND IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND BAD AT LAW. GROUND NO.6:- ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE OF TENANTS MADE BY THE LD. AO IS BASED ON SURMISE A ND CONJECTURE AND IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND BAD AT LAW. GROUND NO.7:- THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVES TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANOTHER GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG OF APPEAL OR EARLIER. ASST. YEAR 2001-02. ITA NOS.2862 TO 2867/DEL./2011 3 3. IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE GROUNDS WERE SA ME EXCEPT THE DIFFERENCE IN FIGURES IN GROUND NOS.5 & 6 ON ACCOUN T OF ADDITION MADE OF DONATION RECEIVED AND ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE OF TENAN TS RESPECTIVELY. 4. THE CIT (A) HAS DISPOSED OFF ALL THE APPEALS BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 2.5 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR AND VARIOUS REJOINDERS SUBMITTED FROM TIME TO TIME, FINDING OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IN TWO REMAND REPORTS AS WELL AS REPORT W ITH REGARD TO- ATTENDANCE OF PRAVEEN WALIA HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY ME AND AFTER GOING THROUGH ALL THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND V ERIFICATION OF THE RECORD IN THIS REGARD, THE ISSUE IS DECIDED AS UNDER:- 3. I HAVE VERIFIED THE ASSESSEE'S RECORDS AND PERUS ED THE COPY OF REASONS PROVIDED BY AO TO ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATE D 5TH JULY, 2007. I HAVE ALSO OBTAINED THE CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF REASONS RE CORDED BY AO AND LETTER DATED 5TH JULY, 2007 OF AD FOR ALL THE SIX YEARS. I DO NOT SEE ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE REASONS RECORDED BY AO AND REASO NS PROVIDED TO ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY CERTIFIED COPY OF REASONS IS BEING ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE' A' OF THIS ORDER (12 PAGES). VARIOUS A LLEGATIONS AND COUNTER ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN DEALT BY ME AND I HAVE FOUND THAT:- 1. THERE IS NO MALAFIDE INTENTION OF INSPECTOR VISI TING THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE ON HOLIDAY. 2. COPY OF REASONS RECORDED BY AO FOR SIX ASSESSMEN T YEARS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO CHAIRPERSON OF ASSESSEE TRUST VIDE LETT ER DATED 5-7-2007 WHICH IS BEING MADE AS ANNEXURE OF THIS ORDER. 3. I DO NOT FIND ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE REASONS RECO RDED BY AO AND IN THE COPY OF LETTER BY WHICH REASONS WERE PROVIDED T O CHAIRPERSON OF ASSESSEE TRUST FOR E.G. FOR A. Y. 2001-02 LETTER IS APPEARING AT PAGE (2) OF ANNEXURE 'A' AND REASON IS APPEARING AT PAGE 10 OF ANNEXURE. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. THESE PAGES HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM ORIGIN AL RECORD AND HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED BY AO SHRI ROHIT ANAND AS ON 2L.L 0. 2010. SIMILAR IS THE CASE FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS. 4. SO THIS IS FINDING OF FACT THAT PROPER OPPORTUNI TY WAS PROVIDED BY AO BY PROVIDING THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED AS IS EVIDENT FROM ANNEXURE 'A' OF THIS ORDER. 5. ACTION OF AO BY REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT IS .FOU ND TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF IT ACT AND AO HAS TAKEN PROPER APPROVAL OF ADDL. DIT BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF IT ACT. ITA NOS.2862 TO 2867/DEL./2011 4 6. I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY VIDE ENTRY DATED 19.12.2007 IT IS MENTIONED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PRODUCED. 3.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, I MY CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT ACTION OF AO, DESERVES TO BE CONFIRMED. GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 6 FOR ALL THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE DISMISSED. 4. GROUND NO.7 IS GENERAL IN NATURE FOR ALL THE AS SESSMENT YEARS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE GROUNDS RAIS ED BEFORE US. IN THE GROUND NO.3, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE CONFIR MING OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CIT (A). ON PERUSAL OF TH E ORDER AND FINDING OF THE CIT (A), WE FIND THAT HE HAS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON T HE MERITS OF THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY TO RESTORE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) FOR D ECIDING ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM IN THE ASSESSEES APPEALS. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF MAY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (U.B.S. BEDI) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 16 TH DAY OF MAY, 2012 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT (A)-XXI, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.