M/s. Aerial Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4510/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65977 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANURADHA MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT JAIN SH ROHIT GARG CAS

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 4510 & 4511/DEL/2012 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 4510 & 4511/DEL/2012 A.YRS. : 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S AERIAL ESTATES PVT. LTD., 10, TODARMAL LANE, 2 ND FLOOR, BENGALI MARKET, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAFCA 2968M) VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. ROHIT JAIN, SH. ROHIT GARG, CAS DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. ANURADHA MISHRA, C.I.T. (D.R.) ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008- 09 & 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE ISSUES ARE COMMON AND CONNECTED, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (A) ERRED IN NOT QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER U/S. 143(3)/153C/153A OF THE I.T. ACT WITHOUT APPRE CIATING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CEASED TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION O VER THE PENDING ASSESSMENT FOR THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, SINCE THE ASSESSEES ITA NOS. 4510 & 4511/DEL/2012 2 APPLICATION FOR SETTLEMENT OF ITS CASE, IN THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEAR HAD BEEN ADMITTED BY THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIO N (ITSC). 3. IN THESE CASES THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09 WAS FILED ON 2.9.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 3 409210/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A T A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 178609210/-. SIMILARLY, RETURN OF INCOME FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WAS FILED ON 8.6.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF ` 37,18,462/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 25,31,18,462/-. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT ORDER ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A). LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (A) NOTED THAT ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS THAT, AS SESSEES SETTLEMENT APPLICATION U/S. 245C(1) HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE IT SC VIDE ORDER U/S. 245D(1) DATED 20.12.2011. THE WRIT PETITION OF THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 245D(1) OF ITSC WAS DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WP(C) 2649/2012 DATED 4.5.2012 AND WP(C) 2712/2012 DATED 7.5.2012. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HELD AS UNDER:- IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 245F(2), THE I NCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION NOW HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER ITA NOS. 4510 & 4511/DEL/2012 3 THIS CASE. PRESENT APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, TREATED A S INFRUCTUOUS. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 6. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT QUASHING THE ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS PASSED A VERY LACONIC AND NON-SPEAKING ORDER IN THIS CASE. PRIM A FACIE AS PER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ASSESSMENT ORDE RS DO NOT SURVIVE, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEES APPLICATION U/S . 245C(1) HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE ITSC AND THE WRIT PETITION OF THE D EPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 245D(1) OF ITSC WAS ALSO DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. WE FIND THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( A) HAS NOT CLEARLY SPELT OUT AS TO WHETHER HE IS SETTING ASIDE /QUASHING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR NOT. THE ASSESSEES PLEA IN THIS REGARD IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) SHOULD HAVE C LEARLY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, EVEN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULE OF NATUR AL JUSTICE. HENCE, ITA NOS. 4510 & 4511/DEL/2012 4 WE REMIT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) TO PASS A SPEAKING OR DER ON THIS ISSUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE ASSESSEES APPEALS AR E ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/11/2012. SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - [ [[ [U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE:- 30/11/2012 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES