Veterinary Council of India, New Delhi V. ADIT, New Delhi

ITA 4262/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65570 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 04-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS MEETA SINH A
• Assessee Lawyers: A K VARSHNEY
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `H : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.4262,4263,4264 & 4265/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06,06-07,07-08 & & 08- 09) VETERINARY COUNCIL OF INDIA, VS. ADIT, TRUST CIRC LE-IV, A WING, IIND FLOOR, NEW DELHI. AUGUST KRANTI BHAWAN, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-66. (PAN/GIR NO.AAATV5040M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.K. VARSHNEY, CA REVENUE BY : MRS. MEETA SINHA, SR.DR ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. THESE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST SEPARATE, BUT IDENTICAL ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT (A)-XXI, NEW DELHI, ALL D ATED 28.07.2011, RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 06-07,07-08 & 08-09. SIN CE, ALL THESE APPEALS INVOLVE IDENTICAL FACTS AND SIMILAR ISSUES, THEREFORE, ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS SINGLE ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN ALL THESE APPEALS, FOLLOWING TWO EFFECTIVE ID ENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. THAT THE CIT(A)-XXI, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN IGNORING WHILE FRA MING HIS ORDER, THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.1/1148 F.NO.267/482/77-IT DAT ED 09.02.1978 WHICH WAS THE MAIN PART OF THE APPEALS BEFORE HIM. 2. THAT THE CIT(A)-XXI, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN IGNORING AND REJEC TING THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE BEHIND NOT PRODUCING AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10B, BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CONTENTION THAT AUDIT REPORT IN FOR M 10B CAN ALSO BE PRODUCED DURING THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS BY SHOWIN G SUFFICIENT CAUSE. ITA NOS.4262,4263,4264&4265/DEL./2011 (A.YS. : 2005-06,06-07,07-08 & 08-09) 2 3. FACTS INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS FILED ITS RETURN ON DIFFERENT DATES SHOWING NIL INCOME FO R ALL THE YEARS. ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED AT NIL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, WHEREAS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07,07-08 & 08-09, INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.39,15,711, RS.22,65,026/- AND RS.40,48,985/-, RESPECTIVELY. 4. ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS BY FILING SEPARATE APPEALS FOR EACH OF THE YEARS, BUT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL WHEN APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A) BY PASSING ID ENTICAL, BUT SEPARATE ORDERS ALL DATED 28.7.2011 WHILE REJECTING THE PLEA FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE CIT(A) WHICH WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE PLEA THAT THE A SSESSEE BEING A LIMB OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT TAXABLE AT ALL. 5. STILL AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN FURTHER APPEAL AND CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE CONFIRMATION OF INCOME ASSESSED AS WELL AS R EJECTION OF THE PLEA ABOUT ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE PL EA ABOUT NON-TAXABILITY OF INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING A GOVERNMENT BODY, UN DER ARTICLE 289 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND IT WAS STRONGLY PLEADED THAT NEITHER A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADMITTED NOR THE PLEA RAISED ABOUT THE NON-TAXABILITY OF INC OME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING A GOVERNMENT BODY, HAS BEEN APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED OR DECIDED WHEN SPECIFIC PLEA WAS OTHERWISE MADE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ALSO. THER EFORE, CIT(A)S ORDER IS NEITHER PROPER NOR JUSTIFIED AND NEEDS TO BE VACATED ALONG WITH ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. LD.DR HAS BEEN HEARD, WHO SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PLEADED FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF C IT(A) FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, CONSIDERED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS PRECEDENT CITED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REITER ATED BEFORE US AND FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT PROPERLY DEALT WITH ISSUES RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE NOR HAS HE GIVEN APPROPRIATE AND JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE, SOUGHT TO BE ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AN D TO HAVE FAIR PLAY IN THE MATTER, WE FIND IT JUST AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK ON THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WI TH THE DIRECTION TO FRAME ASSESSMENT ITA NOS.4262,4263,4264&4265/DEL./2011 (A.YS. : 2005-06,06-07,07-08 & 08-09) 3 AFRESH IN THIS CASE AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 11. AS A RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE GET ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 05.10.2012. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : OCT. 05, 2012. SKB COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXI, NEW DELHI. 5. CIT(ITAT) DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT