The Income-tax Officer, Bathinda V. Late Sh. Hakam Singh S/o. Sh. Lal Singh, GillPatti

ITA 351/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63536 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.351(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 PAN : INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. LATE SH. HAKAM SINGH WARD-II(1), BATHINDA. SH. LAL SINGH, VILL. GILL P ATTI, BATHINDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. TARSEM LAL, DR RESPONDENT BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING:23/10/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:23/10/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A), BATHINDA DATED 21.06.2012 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007-08, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: (I) ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE L D. CIT(A) IS ERRED IN CANCELING THE ASSESSMENT ON THE REASONING THAT N O VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) AS ISSUED ON 23.05.2008 WAS SERVE D UPON THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.351(ASR)/2012 2 II) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOS ED OFF. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR TODAY I.E. 23.10.2012. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR H IS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION F OR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSU E NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUT E EX-PARTE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. AND ALSO CITED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUN JAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT DATED 27.09.2011 IN THE CASE OF V.R.A. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS IN CWP NO.18193 OF 2011. HE STATED THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME OF LIMITAT ION AND IT IS DEEMED TO BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE BUT THE LD. FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY HAS WRONGLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING ILLITERATE AND THE SIG NATURE ON THE NOTICE WAS NOT HIS, IT IS CLEAR THAT NO VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, AS ISSUED ON 23.05.2008. HE STATED THAT T HE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS CANCELLED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE LEGAL GROUND WITHOUT THOROUGHLY GOING THROUGH THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE C ASE. ITA NO.351(ASR)/2012 3 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVAN T RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF V.R.A. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. VS. UNION OF I NDIA AND OTHERS IN CWP NO.18193 OF 2011, DATED 27.09.2011. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAME IS REPRODUCED, AS UNDE R: THE PETITIONER FILED ITS INCOME TAX RETURN ON 29.09 .2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03 .2009. EARLIER A NOTICE U/S 142(1) O THE ACT WAS ISSUED SEEKING CERT AIN INFORMATION. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 30.09 .2010. THE GRIEVANCE IN THE PETITIONER IS THAT SUCH NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE TILL 30.09.2010 I.E. THE LAST DATE OF LIMITATION FOR THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10. IN VIEW OF THE SAID JUDGMENT, THE DATE OF RECEIPT O F NOTICE BY THE ADDRESSEE IS NOT RELEVANT TO DETERMINE, AS TO WHETH ER THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITAT ION. THE EXPRESSION SERVE MEANS THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE. THE DATE O F RECEIPT OF NOTICE CANNOT BE LEFT TO BE UNDETERMINED DEPENDENT UPON TH E WILL OF THE ADDRESSEE. THEREFORE, TO BRING CERTAINLY AND TO AVO ID ATTEMPTS OF THE ADDRESSEE TO EVADE THE PROCESS OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE , THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE WILL BE BETTER SERVED. IF THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE IS CONSIDERED AS COMPLIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF PROVISO TO SECT ION 143(2) OF THE ACT. IN FACT, THAT IS THE ONLY CONCLUSION THAT CAN BE ARRIVED AT TO THE EXPRESSION SERVE APPEARING IN SECTION 143(2) OF T HE ACT. 4.1. WE ARE NOT COMMENTING UPON THE MERIT OF THE CA SE, BUT WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V.R.A. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS IN CWP NO.18193 OF 2011 (SUPRA), IS VERY MUCH RELEVANT FOR THE CORRECT DECISION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE T HE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE ITA NO.351(ASR)/2012 4 FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND ES PECIALLY KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF V.R.A. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS IN CWP NO.18193 OF 2011 (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23RD OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23RD OCTOBER, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:LATE SH. HAKAM SINGH S/O SH. LAL SINGH , BATHINDA. 2. THE ITO WARD II(1), BATHINDA. 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA. 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.