Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Khatri, New Delhi V. ITO, Faridabad

ITA 3282/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1279 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. C. M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3282/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 ITA No. 3283/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Khatri 501/7, Close North Nirvana Country, Gurgaon PAN : AKNPK5470F Vs ITO Ward-II(4) Faridabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHFPK5915J ITA No. 445/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Khatri 501/7, Close North Nirvana Country, Gurgaon PAN : AKNPK5470F Vs ITO Ward-II(3) Faridabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHFPK5915J Assessee by : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. H.K.Choudhary, CIT-DR, Sh. Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 30 .06.2022 ORDER Per T.S.KAPOOR, AM The appe al s i n I TA no. 3282/ De l/ 2017 and 3283/Del /2017a re a gai ns t t he co mmon order of L d. CI T(A) dat ed 30.05.2016 ITA No. 3282 & Ors. Sanjeev Kumar Khatri 2 wher ein t he Ld. C IT( A) ha s uphel d the orde r of As s es s ing Of fic er ma ki ng ce rta in addit ions, where as a ppeal i n ITA No. 445/ De l/ 2019 i s agai nst the orde r of Ld. CIT (A) dated 28. 12.2018 wher ein he ha s upheld t he pe nalt y i mpose d on a s se sse e u/s 271( 1)(c) of t he Ac t. 2. The Ld. AR, at t he out set, invit ed our at te nti on to t he fac t t hat as s es s ment i n the se cas es wa s c o mple te d a ft er reope ning of t he ca se s u/ s 148 of t he Act a nd t he noti ces for reopeni ng u/s 148 wer e is s ued on t he addre s s whic h did not be long t o the as s es se e a nd in t his res pect our a tt ent ion was invi te d to pape r book pa ge no. 1 where in copy of noti ce u/s 148 da te d 13. 03. 2014 was plac ed a nd our s pec ifi c at te ntion was invited to t he addres s on the not ic e whic h rel at ed to Fari daba d. The Ld. AR s ub mi tt ed tha t t he addre ss of the a s se s ee a s pe r the la te st ret urn fi le d b y asse s se e on dat ed 30. 12.2013 was in the a rea of Tugla kaba d, De lhi a nd i n t hi s r es pec t our a tt ent ion was invi te d to pape r book page no. 7 wher ein t he c op y of a cknowl edgeme nt of re turn of inco me fo r a s se s s me nt ye ar 2 013-14 was pla ce d. The Ld. AR s ub mit te d tha t a t the ti me of re c ordi ng rea sons a nd at t he ti me of i ss uing not ic e u/ s 148 the l ast known a ddress was in the knowle dge of the As se s si ng Of fic er a s he had fi l ed the ret urn on 30.12.2013. Furt her our atte ntion wa s i nvit ed to the cop y of P AN D at a rel at ing t o the a ss es s ee where in aga in the a ddres s menti oned wa s t he sa me whic h ha s be en me nt ioned i n t he ret urn of i nco me t here fore, in vi ew of t his fa ct tha t the noti ce u/s 148 was is sued on wrong a ddres s , t he Ld. AR argue d t ha t such noti ce ca nnot be s e t to have be en e ven i ssue d mu ch l es s s aid tha t i t was s erve d. There fore, i t was s t at ed t hat the a ss e ss e e ha d t aken addi tional grounds of a ppea l i n bot h ye a rs and our at tenti on wa s invite d to the pet it ion ITA No. 3282 & Ors. Sanjeev Kumar Khatri 3 da te d 08.04. 2022 whe rei n the pr a ye r f or a d mis s i on of a ddit iona l gr ounds was pl ace d. The Ld. AR r ea d out t he a ddit iona l grounds of appe al a nd s ub mi tt ed t hat s i nce t hes e addit ional grounds a re l ega l i n na ture and a re c oming out fro m t he mat e ri al a lr ead y e xis t ing on the rec ord, t here fore, the s a me ma y be ad mi tt ed and a djudi ca ted f irs t. 3. The Ld. AR s ubmi t te d t hat s i nce the not ic es u/s 148 we re a ddres s ed a t the wrong a ddres s whi ch ad mi tt edl y di d not be long t o t he a ss e ss ee , the refor e t he ass e ss me nt orde rs pas s ed b y As se s si ng Off ice r are nul l a nd voi d and nee ds to be annul led. 4. The l d. CIT- DR on the othe r ha nd obj ec te d to the admi s s ion of a ddit iona l grounds and s ub mit te d t hat t he additional grounds t ake n b y the a s se ss e e are not l egal in na ture but re quire s t he f act ual findings as t o how the a ddres s ment ione d on t he noti ce s u/ s 148 did not re la te to t he a ss e ss ee. It was s ub mi tt e d t hat onl y a ft er det ai led argume nt s and det ail ed fi ndings f ro m t h e rec ords of t he depa rt ment i t can be conc lude d as to whe the r t he noti ce s we re i s s ued on the wrong a ddres s or not a nd si nce thes e fac ts are not on re cord, the refore, the a ddit iona l grounds ta ken b y as s es s ee s hould not be ad mi t ted. 5. The ld. AR s ub mi tt ed t ha t t he as s es sme nt s i n t hes e ca se s ha s be en made b y As s e s si ng of fic er u/s 144 of the Ac t and before Ld. CIT( A) al so nobod y had a ppear ed i n vie w of dif fere nce in the s t at ed a ddr es s of as s es s ee a nd on whi ch not ic es we re be ing c o mmuni cat ed an d t here fore he s ub mit t ed t hat the cas es of t he a s se s se e c ould not be expl ai ned be fore the a uthor ities be low and i t would be fa ir t o bot h pa rti es if t he ca se s a re set a si de t o t he As se s si ng offi ce r for re adj udic ation on the i ssues aft er t he a s se s se e is al lowed s uffi ci ent oppor tuni t y of bei ng hear d. ITA No. 3282 & Ors. Sanjeev Kumar Khatri 4 6. The ld CIT- DR s t a te d t hat be fore Ld. CI T( A) t he a s s es se e f il ed appe al s and e ven the n t he as s es s ee di d not appe ar befor e hi m de s pit e of var ious not ic es a s me nti oned i n hi s order whic h proves t hat as s es s ee i s not int ere st ed i n pe rus ing hi s appe al s but at the s a me t i me he a d mit t ed tha t as ses s ee has not ava il ed an y oppor tunit y t o e xpla in hi s ca s e on meri ts . 7. We have he ard the riva l pa rti es and have gone thr ough t he ma t eri al pla ce d o n re cord. We fin d tha t t he as s es see has t aken a ddit iona l grounds of a ppea l whi ch are s i mil ar i n bot h t he appe al s a nd whi ch for the sa ke of co mpl et ene ss , are re produced below :- “Be for e, Date d : 08-04-2022 Hon’bl e “G” Be nch, I ncome Tax Appellat e Tr ibunal, Ne w Del hi. Si r , Sub: Pr aye r f or adm iss ion of addi tional ground i n t he cas e of Sh. Sanj ee v Khatr i for AY 2007-08 i n I TA No. 3282/Del /2017 agai nst t he or der pass e d u/s 144/147 of t he I ncom e Tax Act , 1961. The above said appeal i s fi xed for he aring bef ore Your Honour f or t oday i. e . 12-04-2022. The appel lant begs to mov e the f oll owing grounds as addi ti onal gr ounds :- 1. That havi ng r egar d to the fact s and c ir cums tanc es of t he c ase , Ld. CIT (A) has e rr e d in l aw and on fac ts in not quashing the i mpugne d r eas s es s ment or de r pass e d by Ld. AO and t hat t oo wi thout ass uming j uri s dicti on as per law and without comply ing with mandator y condi ti ons u/ s 147 t o 151 as env isaged under the Income Tax Act , 1961. 2 That in any c as e and i n any vi ew of the matt er, acti on of Ld. CIT(A) i n not quashing t he impugne d r eass ess me nt or der pass ed by Ld. AO 144/ 147, i s bad i n l aw and agai nst t he fac ts and ci rcums t ances of t he Case . Si nce the above gr ounds of appeal are pur el y l egal and do not r equi r e fr esh fac ts to be inve s ti gate d and go to the r oot ITA No. 3282 & Ors. Sanjeev Kumar Khatri 5 of the mat te r, i t i s pray ed that t he s ame may ple ase be admit te d i n vi ew of the fol lowing j udgme nts : • CI T vs . Si nhgad Tec hnic al Educati on Soci et y, (2017) 397 ITR 0344 (SC) • NTPC Lt d. vs. CIT, (1998 ) 229 ITR 0383 (SC) • VMT Spinni ng Co. Lt d. vs. CIT & Anr. , (2016 ) 389 I TR 0326 (P &H ) • CI T vs . Sam Global Sec ur i ti es , (2014 ) 360 ITR 0682 (De l. ) • Si ks ha vs. CI T, (201 1) 336 I TR 0112 (Or is s a ) • I nvent or s Indus t rial Cor poration Ltd. vs. CI T, (1992 ) 194 I TR 0548 (Bom. ) 1 s hall be highl y obl iged. Thanki ng you, Y our s Fait hful ly , Sd/ - (Sanje ev Khatr i )” 8. The Ld. AR through thes e additi onal grounds ha s pra yed tha t t he order s pas s ed b y As se ss i ng Offi cer be quas he d and be de cl are d as void ab i nit io i n vi ew of the f act tha t t he As s es s ing Offi ce r had not c orrec tl y a cquir ed t he j uri sdi ct ion and had not c o mpli ed wi t h t he condit i ons of Se ct ion 147 to 151 of the A ct . The a ddit iona l grounds taken b y as se s se e a re pa rt l y l e gal in na tur e of part l y fa ctua l and for a d mi s s ion as additi onal grounds of a ppea l it r equi res , f urthe r f act ual inves t iga ti on as t o how t he not i ces iss ued u/s 148 we re havi ng di ffere nt addre sse s t han t he a ddres s ment ione d i n t he ret urn of i nco me f or As se ss me nt Ye ar 2013- 14 and als o fro m t he a ddres s me nt i oned in PAN Dat a bas e . I t i s undi sput ed fac t that a ss e ss e e ha d not fi led regular ret urns of i nco me for t hes e a s se s s me nt ye ars a nd ther efore the As s es s ing of fic er mus t have i s sue d not i ces to the a s se s se e on the bas i s of a ddres s gi ve n on t he bank s t at e me n ts fro m where the depa rt me nt ha d t he inf or mat ion tha t as s ess ee had ma de cer ta in depos its in the ITA No. 3282 & Ors. Sanjeev Kumar Khatri 6 ba nk acc ount. Si nce thes e f act s a re not on re cord, the refor e, we hol d tha t the gr ounds taken b y as s es se e as addi tional gr ound of a ppea l are not purel y le gal i n nat ure and ar e both fa ct ual a nd l egal a nd the ref ore c annot be a d mit te d and t here fore we dis mi ss t he a ddit iona l grounds in both ye ar s. 9. Now c o ming to t he argu me nts of Ld. AR t hat si nce ther e wa s a di ffer ence in the addre ss on t he noti ces u/ s 148 and on the la st a ddres s known to the depa rt ment the as s es s ee coul d not at te nd to t he a ss es s me nt pr oce edi ngs we te nd t o agre e wi th t his argu me nt a nd t her efore we are of t he opini on t hat the mat te r requi res re- a djudi ca ti on b y A s se ss i ng offic er. 10. As re gards t he a ppea l be fore Ld. CIT( A), We fi nd tha t de s pit e havi ng f iled appea ls before Ld. CIT( A) the a s se s se e did not a ppea r be fore Ld. CIT( A) al so and if on one or two occ as ions he a ppea red but he did not fi le a ny evi de nce s i n s upport of his c as e. The ld. CIT(A) has the refore , di s mis s ed t he ap pe al s of t he a s se s se e. Though i n vi ew of fa ct tha t a s se s se e did not co-ope rat e i n t he proce edi ngs before Ld. CI T(A) des pit e ge tt ing s o man y not i ces on t he addres s ment ioned in the a ppea l me mo, t he a s se s se e doe s not des erve a n y s econ d chanc e but ke epi ng i n vie w t he e quit y and pr inci ple of na tura l jus ti ce, we ar e of t he opi nion t hat one more opport unit y s houl d be give n t o the a sse ss e e to e xpla in his c as e. There fore, we s et as i de t he mat ters to As s es s ing Offi ce r wit h the di rec ti on to deci de the i s sue s a fres h aft er a ffordi ng to the ass es s ee a re as onable opport unit y of bei ng he ard. 11. The as s es s ee i s a ls o dire ct ed to co- opera te i n t he pr ocee dings befor e As s es s ing Off ic er. In vie w of the above a ppea ls in ITA no. 3282, 3283 a re a ll owe d for s t atis ti ca l pur poses . ITA No. 3282 & Ors. Sanjeev Kumar Khatri 7 12. I TA No. 445 i s a gai nst the pe nal t y i mpose d a nd s us ta ine d b y Ld. CIT(A ) u/ s 271(1)( c) of t he Act whic h i s cons eque nti al to t he a ddit ions sus ta ine d b y Ld. CIT( A) duri ng ass es s ment Ye ar 2008- 09. 13. Si nce, we ha ve s et a si de the mat ter s t o t he As ses s ing Of fic er f or re -adj udic at ion the a ppeal i n ITA no. 445/Del /2019 is als o se t a s ide t o As s es s ing offi ce r wit h a d ir ect ion t o pa s s fres h pe nal t y or der aft er c o mple ti ng as se s s ment i n acc ordanc e wi th law. 14. Cons equentl y, al l t hes e appea ls a re a ll owe d for s t at is ti ca l pur poses . Orde r Pronounc ed in t he Ope n Court on 30/ 06/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (C.M.GARG) (T.S.KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 30/06/2020 *Binita, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi