M/s. Lajwanti Cotton Ginning Factory, Bathinda V. Income-tax Officer, Bathinda

ITA 395/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 39520914 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J K GUPTA
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. (SMC) BEFORE SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 395(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAN: AAAFL8086H M/S LAJWANTI COTTON GINNING VS. INCOME TAX OFFI CER, FACTORY, 505, MODEL TOWN, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA BATHINDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. J.K. GUPTA, ADV. & MS. JYOTSNA, CA RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 28.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:30.10.2014 ORDER 1) THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), BATHINDA, DATED 23.04.2014 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008-09. 2) THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: I. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMEN T MADE BY THE A.O., WARD 1(1), BATHINDA ON THE BASIS OF NOTICE IS SUED U/S 142(1)/143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE A. O., WARD 3(4), FARIDKOT. II. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE APPLICATI ON OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. 2 I.T.A. NO. 395(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 III. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE RELIEF AT RS . 170851/- INSTEAD OF RS. 107851/- AS THERE WAS TYPICAL MISTA KE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A), BATHINDA. IV. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 70,332/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED UNDER VALUATION OF THE CL OSING STOCK OF COTTON. V. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,000/- IN SCRAP ACCOUNT. VI. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,512/- OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES WHEN THE TAX ON THE SAME WE RE PAID UNDER FBT PROVISIONS. VII. THAT ANY OTHER RELIEF MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO WHICH IT IS FOUND ENTITLED AT THE TIME OF HEARING A PPEAL. 3) AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 1 BEING THE LEGAL GROUND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. J.K. GUPTA SUBMITTED T HAT IT IS A CASE OF REGISTERED FIRM. THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS BEEN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME SINCE A.Y. 1995-96 ONWARDS WITH THE A.O., WARD 1(1) , BATHINDA. THE CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 W ERE ASSESSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) BY THE ADD. CIT, RANGE 1, BATHINDA AND AO, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA ON 08.02.2008 AND 12.10.2009 RESPECTIVELY. THESE ARE THE IMMEDIATE PR EVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 UNDER APPEAL. EVEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WAS QUASHED BY THE HONBLE ITAT ON 3 I.T.A. NO. 395(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 08.06.2011, VIDE ORDER PLACED AT PAGE 5 TO 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER TRANSFERRED FROM THE FILE OF ITO, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA TO THE FILE OF ITO, WARD 3(4), FARIDKOT BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT. FOR THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08, THE NOTICES U /S 143(2) AND 142 OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA , HIMSELF NOT BY THE ITO, FARIDKOT. THEN, HOW THE A.O., WARD 1(1), BATHI NDA CAN SAY THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O., FARIDKOT IS VALID. IF TH E PAN IS LYING THERE AT FARIDKOT, THEN IT IS THE DUTY OF THE A.O. TO GET TH E PAN TRANSFERRED TO BATHINDA AS THE ASSESSMENT IS BEING FRAMED BY HIM Y EAR AFTER YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O., FARIDKO T FOR SCRUTINY IS INVALID AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON LT. COL. PARAMJIT SINGH VS. CIT AND ANOTHER 220 ITR 446 (P&H ). FURTHER, AS PER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT, AT A TIME ONLY ONE A.O. CAN HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE NOTICE WA S ISSUED BY THE OUT STATION ITO WORKING UNDER DIFFERENT RANGE III. RELI ANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON 282 ITR 334 (KER). 4) HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FIL ING THE RETURN OF INCOME SINCE 1995-96 TILL DATE WITH ITO, BATHINDA, AND IS BEING ASSESSED 4 I.T.A. NO. 395(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 REGULARLY WITH ITO, BATHINDA. HE BROUGHT OUR ATTENT ION TO THE LATEST NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA, WHICH IS PL ACED ON RECORD. 5) HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 07.09.2009 AND THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM SH. NITYA NAND ATTENDED THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE A .O. WHERE OBJECTION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RAISED THAT THE ASSES SEE IS BEING ASSESSED WITH THE A.O., BATHINDA AND THE COPY OF THE ORDER S HEET HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS ONLY ON 18.01.2010, THE ITO, BATHI NDA, ISSUED THE FIRST NOTICE FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR, THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: I. P.A. AHAMMED VS. CHIEF CIT & ANR. , 282 ITR 334 ( KER). II. LT. COL. PARAMJIT SINGH VS. CIT , 220 ITR 446 (P& H) 6) HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE A.O. , FARIDKOT HAS N O JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE NOTICE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED IS BAD IN LAW AND THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE QUASHED, WAS PRAYED BY LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 7) LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, AT THE OUTSET, RE LIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). HE ARGUED THAT INFO RMING THE A.O. BY THE 5 I.T.A. NO. 395(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ASSESSEE DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO OBJECTION UNDER SEC TION 124(3)(A) OF THE ACT, SINCE THERE IS NO PROPER OBJECTION RAISED. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED AR ARE ON DIFFERENT FACTS. MR. TARSE M LAL, DR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONSCIOUSLY DID NOT TAKE T HE LEGAL OBJECTION IN THE PROPER FORM AND ACCORDINGLY PRAYED TO CONFIRM T HE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 8) IN THE REJOINDER, THE LEARNED AR ARGUED THAT ON 15.09.2009, THE OBJECTION WAS RAISED BEFORE THE A.O., FARIDKOT, WHI CH IS A MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE ORDER-SHEET AND THE A.O., FARIDKOT, H AD SUFFICIENT TIME TO TRANSFER THE RECORD TO THE A.O., BATHINDA, TO MAKE THE COMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 124(3)(A) OF THE ACT BUT THE SAME WAS NOT D ONE. THE FIRST NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE A.O., BATHINDA, ONLY ON 18.01.201 0, AS SUBMITTED HEREINABOVE. 9) I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED T HE FACTS OF THE CASE. 10) THE RETURN IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS E-FILED ON 29. 09.2008 WHICH WAS TAKEN UNDER SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS AND ACCORDING LY STATUTORY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 07.09 .2009 FIXING THE CASE FOR 15.09.2009. THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM REPRESENTED THE 6 I.T.A. NO. 395(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 MATTER WHO STATED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSE SSED WITH A.O., BATHINDA AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE COPY OF THE RETURN, ETC. THE OBJECTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS THAT THIS IS AN INFORMATION WHICH HAS BEEN NOTED IN THE ORDER-SHEET DATED 15.09.2009 AND NO LEGAL OBJECTION WAS IN THE PROPER FORM. IN T HIS REGARD, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH TYPE OF OBJECTION OR INFORMATION DO NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE SINCE THE ITO HAS NOTED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ACCORDINGLY THE FILE WAS TRANSFERRED BUT ONLY ON 18.01.2010, WH ICH IN FACT, COULD HAVE BEEN DONE IMMEDIATELY ON 15.09.2009, KEEPING IN VIE W THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 124(3)(A) OF THE ACT, BUT THE SAME WAS NOT DONE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS, I TREAT THE SAID IN FORMATION DATED 15.09.2009 AS LEGAL OBJECTION UNDER SECTION 124(3)( A) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TRANSFER ORDER OF THE CASE FROM ITO, BATHINDA, TO ITO, FARIDKOT, THE ARGUMENT MADE BY THE LEARNED DR DO NOT HELP THE REVENUE AND THE NOTICE ISSUED IS BA D IN LAW AND THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE IS DIRECTED TO BE QUASHED. THUS, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7 I.T.A. NO. 395(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 11) GROUND NOS. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 BEING ON MERIT ARE NO T DECIDED, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCEEDED IN GROUND NO. 1 AND THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN QUASHED BEING THE LEGAL GROUND. 12) GROUND NO. 7 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE D O NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 13) IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH OCTOBER, 2014 SD/- (B.P. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 TH OCTOBER, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S LAJWANTI COTTON GINNING FACTORY, 505, MODEL TOWN, BATHINDA. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(1), BATHINDA. 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.