Tapas Sarkar, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward 3(4), Purulia

ITA 451/KOL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: 45123514 RSA 2008
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A K PARAMANIK
• Keywords: Assessment record; Reassessment proceedings

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 451 TO 453/KOL/2008 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01,01-02 AND 03-04 PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER), AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NO.: 451 TO 453/KOL/2008 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01, 01-02 AND 03-04 TAPAS SARKAR ..APPELLANT VILLAGE & POST OFFICE: BOGRA DISTRICT : PURALIA (WB) 723 145 [PAN: AMEPS1738D] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4), PURALIA RESPONDENT APPEARANCES V K PUROHIT FOR THE APPELLANT A K PARAMANIK FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 10,2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 30,2012 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. THESE THREE APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OF BY THIS TRI BUNAL, VIDE ORDER DATED 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008, BUT, VIDE SUBSEQUENT ORDER DATED 3 RD JULY 2009 ON ASSESSEES PETITION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT, .WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD HAS CREPT IN OUR ORDER DATED 1 4.11.2008 AND THE I.T.A. NO.: 451 TO 453/KOL/2008 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01,01-02 AND 03-04 PAGE 2 OF 4 SAME IS HEREBY RECALLED. THIS IS HOW THE APPEALS WERE POSTED FOR HEARING DE NOVO BEFORE US. 2. ALL THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE, INVOLVE A COMMON ISSUE AND ARISE OUT OF SIMILAR SET OF FACTS. AS A M ATTER OF CONVENIENCE, THEREFORE, ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. THESE ARE THE CASES OF REOPENED ASSESSMENTS. V IDE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES DATED 29.7.2011 AND 17.10.2011, IN THESE AP PEAL DOCKETS, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND FILE COPIES OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. WHILE LEARNED DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE HAS PRODUCED THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, HE COULD NOT S HOW TO US THE PRECISE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSME NT. ALL THAT HE COULD SHOW WAS AN ORDER SHEET ENTRY WHICH VAGUELY R EFERS TO REOPENING PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUNDS THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BUT THAT ORDER SHEET ENTRY IS CERTAINLY NO SUBSTITUTE F OR RECORDING OF PRECISE REASONS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT IS WELL SETTLED IN LAW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC REASONS RECORDE D FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE VALIDLY INITIATED. IT IS DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FURNISH THE COP IES OF SPECIFIC REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, AND THEN DEA L WITH THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS THERETO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE LAW AND BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER, BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE REASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS IS WHAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF G K N DRIVESHAFTS VS INCOME TAX OFFICER ( 179 CTR 11 ). QUITE I.T.A. NO.: 451 TO 453/KOL/2008 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01,01-02 AND 03-04 PAGE 3 OF 4 CLEARLY, THIS EXERCISE HAS NOT BEEN CONDUCTED. LEAR NED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT FURNISHED COPIES OF SPECIFIC REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING T HE ASSESSMENT BUT PRAYS FOR ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE SAME BEFORE US. IN RESPONSE TO OUR SUGGESTION THAT THE MATTER CAN BE R ESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO FURNISH C OPIES OF REASONS RECORDED TO THE ASSESSEE, AND TO DEAL WITH THE OBJE CTIONS, IF ANY, OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUCH REASONS BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER , BEFORE PROCEEDING TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT DE NOVO, LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE ACCEPTED THE SAID SUGGESTION. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO AGREES TO THIS COURSE OF ACTION BUT SUGGESTS THAT S OME TIMEFRAME SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR FURNISHING OF THE REASONS, OTHERWISE T HIS MATTER WILL REMAIN PENDING FOREVER. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO HIM TO PROVIDE TO THE ASSESSEE COPIES OF REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS BEFORE US. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD COMPLY WITH THESE DIRECTIONS WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE REASONS SO FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE WILL SUBMIT THE SAME FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL DEAL WITH THE SAME B Y WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. IN CASE THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH THE REASONS OF REOPENING THE ASSESS MENT, IT IS ONLY OBVIOUS THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE TO BE HELD AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND WILL HAVE TO BE TREATED AS SUCH. AS THE MATTER IS BEING REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ON THIS SHORT I.T.A. NO.: 451 TO 453/KOL/2008 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01,01-02 AND 03-04 PAGE 4 OF 4 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, WE SEE NO NEED TO DEAL WITH T HE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AND THE TERMS INDICATED ABOV E. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 30 TH APRIL, 2012. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR SINGH PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEM BER) KOLKATA, THE 30 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2012 COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA