Reenu Bansal, Hathras V. I.T.O., Ward-3(3), Hathras

ITA 45/AGR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 4520314 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: WASEEM ARSH
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHR I JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMEBR ITA NO.45/AGRA/ 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01 REENU BANSAL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PROP : S R INTERNATIONAL WARD 3(3), HATHRAS. MURSAN GATE, HATHRAS (PAN AGQPB8042D). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PANKAJ GARGH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSH AD, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 05.06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.07.2014 ORDER PER PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25 TH NOVEMBER, 2011, PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN TH E MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. 2. IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NUMBERS 1 TO 3, WHICH ARE I NTERCONNECTED AND WHICH WE WILL TAKE UP TOGETHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES :- ITA NO.45/AGRA/2012 A.Y. 2000-01 2 1. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT WHICH IS INVALID AND WITHO UT JURISDICTION. 2. BECAUSE THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 147/143(3) OF THE ACT IS WRONG, BAD IN LAW, AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AN D WITHOUT JURISDICTION ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- I) NO PERSONAL SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IN FORMING HIS OWN BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. II) NO ORIGINAL RETURN WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER A T THE TIME OF SO CALLED REASONS RECORDED BY HIM AND THE ISSUE OF NOT ICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. III) REASON RECORDED NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IV) NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ISSUED AFTER FI LING THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN IGNORING/REJECTING THE APPELLANTS SUBMISS ION AND THE LEGAL POSITION ON THE ISSUE. 3. BECAUSE CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND TH E LEGAL POSITION THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND TH E CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 147/143(3) OF THE ACT IS WITH OUT JURISDICTION, INVALID AND DESERVES TO BE ANNULLED/QUASHED. 3. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS ISSUE, ONLY FEW MATERIAL A ND UNDISPUTED FACTS NEED TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS I SSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 30 TH MARCH 2005. SUBSEQUENTLY, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 3(2) WAS ALSO ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 1 ST JULY 2005. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED, VIDE LETTER DA TED 8 TH JULY, 2005, THAT THE RETURN ALREADY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY B E TREATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE. NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT W AS ISSUED THEREAFTER. ON THESE ITA NO.45/AGRA/2012 A.Y. 2000-01 3 FACTS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE REASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS VITIATED IN LAW INASMUCH AS NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED AFTER FILING OF RETURN. THIS PLEA, HOWEVER, WAS RE JECTED BY THE CIT(A) BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS :- 8.2 ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL REGARDING ISSUE O F NOTICE U/S 143(2): THIS GROUND IS ALSO REJECTED BECAUSE NOTICE U/S 143 (2) WAS INDEED ISSUED ON 01.07.2005. THE PURPOSE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS TO MAKE THE ASSESSEE AWARE THAT SCRUTINY PROCEEDING AR E TO BE CARRIED OUT HIS/HER CASE. ALSO PROVISO (B) OF SECTION 148( 1) FURTHER VALIDATES SUCH NOTICE. FURTHERMORE, THE FACT REMAINS THAT AS SESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN IN RESPECT TO NOTICE U/S 148. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 6. WE FIND THAT IT ADMITTED POSITION THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED AFTER ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 8 TH JULY 2005, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN IN VIEW OF DECISION OF A SMC BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF SNEH LATA AGARWAL VS. ITO (ITA NO.47/AG RA/2012; ORDER DATED ITA NO.45/AGRA/2012 A.Y. 2000-01 4 22.06.2012) AND WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THIS DIV ISION BENCH AS WELL. IN THIS DECISION, THE TRIBUNAL HAS, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS :- 16. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T . (THIRD MEMBER), I FIND THAT IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION A REQUEST LETTER DATED 08.07.2005 GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE A.O. TO TRE AT THE ORIGINAL RETURN AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS IN FACT RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U NDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. APART FROM THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., T HE VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF ANAND KUMAR SHARMA VS. ACIT, 198 ITR 121 (ALL), TIW ARI KANHAIYA LAL & ORS. VS. CIT & ORS., 154 ITR 109 (RAJ), & CWT VS. HASNATE BURHANIYAH FIDAIYAH WAKF, 147 ITR 509 (BOM). 17. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, I HOLD THAT THE LETTER DATED 08.07.2005 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTS TO FILING OF RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. I T IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT AFTER FILING LETTER DATED 08.07.2005 WHICH AMOUNTS TO FILING OF RETURN, THEREAFTER, THE A.O. DID NOT ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 143(2) OF THE ACT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS HE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 143(2) OF THE ACT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. I ACCORDINGLY QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY ADDITION MADE IN THE RETURNED INCOME ARE DELETED IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS. 18. SINCE I HAVE DECIDED ONE OF THE LEGAL ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, I DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO GO TO THE OTHER LEGAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND GROUNDS ON MERIT AS THESE BECOME ACADEMIC. I AM, THEREFORE, NOT EXPRESSING ANY OPIN ION ON THOSE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ITA NO.45/AGRA/2012 A.Y. 2000-01 5 7. ONCE IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS NOT ISSUED AFTER 8 TH JULY 2005, AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRECE DENT WHICH HAS BEEN CONCURRED WITH BY A DIVISION BENCH VIDE OUR ORDER O F EVEN DATE IN THE CASE OF VARINDER SINGH RANA VS ITO ( ITA NO 46/AGRA/20120, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. WE, ACCORDINGLY, QUASH THE REASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. 8. GROUND NOS.1 2 & 3 ARE THUS ALLOWED. 9. ON GROUND NO 4, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GRIEVANC E AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE DURING THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HOWEV ER, GIVEN THE FACT THAT REASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF IS QUASHED, ALL THESE ISS UES ARE NOW ACADEMIC AND INFRUCTUOUS. 10. GROUND NO.4 IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE TER MS INDICATED ABOVE. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.07.201 4) SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (PRAMOD KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOU NTANT MEMBER DATE: 18 TH JULY, 2014 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT ITA NO.45/AGRA/2012 A.Y. 2000-01 6 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY