ITO, Meerut V. Smt. Maya Rastogi, Meerut

ITA 3875/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 98037 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 23-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 45(5)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3875/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998-99 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SMT. MAYA RASTOGI, WARD 1(4), C-1/C-2, MODEL TOWN, MEERUT KANKER KHERA, MEERUT (PAN: AJDPR3500L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI P. DAM KANUNJNA, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING ON : 23/11/2015 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 04/12/20 15 PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 28-3-2013 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), MEERUT RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE BROUGHT OUT IN THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER VIDE PARA NOS. 2 TO 5 WHICH IS EXTRACTED BELO W FOR READY REFERENCE. 2. A LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACQUIRED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MEERUT. COMPENSATION INC LUDING SOLATIUM AND INTEREST OF RS. 21,26,757/- WAS AWARDE D ON 1.1.1990 AND WAS RECEIVED ON 30.6.1990 (AT 1991-92 ). THE ASSESSEE FILED CLAIM FOR ENHANCEMENT BEFORE THE ADJ, 2 MEERUT WHO ENHANCED THE COMPENSATION. THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION OF RS. 67,24,575/- WAS RECEIVED ON 16. 8.1993 (AY 1994-95). THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAD FILED AN AP PEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD WHICH VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 10.4.1997 (AY 1998-99) HAS REDUCED THE COMPENSATION. 3. THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE YEAR OF TA XABILITY OF THE COMPENSATION. THE AO RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE ALLAHABD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LAKSHMAN DAS (24 6 ITR 622), HELD THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION I S ASSESSABLE IN AY 1998-99. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE , IN VIEW OF SUB-SECTION 5 OF SECTION 45 AND SPECIFICALL Y CLAUSES (A), (B) AND (C) THEREOF, THE COMPENSATION IS ASSES SABLE IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT I.E. AY 1991-92 & 1994-95. 4. A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE JCIT, RANGE-I, MEER UT TO DECIDE THE ACCESSIBILITY AS IT WAS INFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR AYS 1991-92 AND 1 994- 95 WERE IN PROGRESS BEFORE THE AO. 5. VIDE LETTER DATED 28.3.2013, THE ITO, WARD-1(4), MEERUT HAS INFORMED THAT IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED COMPENSATION IN AY 1991- 92 AND 1994-95, WHICH WAS ASSESSABLE U/S. 45(5) OF I.T . ACT IN AY 1991-92 AND 1994-95 VIDE ORDER U/S. 143(3)/147 D ATED 12.3.2013. 3. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE HIS ORDER 28 .3.2013 HAS GRANTED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THE AP PEAL. 3 4. AGAINST THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 28.3.2013, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST, IN SPITE OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE, NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INV OLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL P URPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSES SEE, THEREFORE, WE ARE DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESS EE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 6. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REITE RATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND REQ UESTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE QUASHED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DISPU TE AND HELD AS UNDER:- 6. ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATE TO THE ASSESSM ENT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS COMPENSATION IN THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION. AS THE AMOUNTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN BR OUGHT TO TAX IN AY 1991-92 AND AY 1994-95 IN THE ORDERS FOR THESE YEARS U/S. 147/143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE ITO , WARD 1(4), MEERUT IN HIS ORDERS DATED 12.3.2013, THE COMPENSATION ASSESSED TO TAX IN THIS YEAR IS HELD T O BE WRONGLY MADE. AO IS DIRECTED TO GIVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXTENT OF COMPENSATION BROUGHT TO TAX IN AYS 199 1-92 & 1994-95. 4 7.1 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD TH AT AS THE AMOUNTS IN DISPUTE HAVE ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX IN AY 1991 -92 AND A.Y. 1994-95 IN THE ORDERS FOR THESE YEARS U/S. 147/143( 3) OF THE ACT BY THE ITO, WARD-1(4), MEERUT IN HIS ORDER DATED 12.3. 2013, THE COMPENSATION ASSESSED TO TAX IN THIS YEAR WAS HELD TO BE WRONGLY MADE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A)S ACTION IN DIRE CTING THE AO TO GIVE THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF COMPENS ATION BROUGHT TO TAX IN AY 1991-92 & 1994-95 WAS A WELL REASONED ACTION , WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THE ISSUE IN D ISPUTE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/12/2015 . SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 04/12/2015 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES