Sri Manappa D. Vajjal., Yadgir V. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Central Circle (1), Belgaum., Belgaum

ITA 47/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3030 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR S SUNDARESAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S VENKATESAN
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 43 TO 48 /PNJ/201 5 (ASST. YEAR S : 200 4 - 0 5 , 2005 - 06, 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 ) SHRI MANAPPA D. VAJJAL, ANJANEY NILAYA, AT POST : VIJJAL, TALUK : SURPUR, DIST. YADGIR. VS. JCIT (OSD) , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, BELGAUM . PAN NO. AAFPW 4052 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. VENKATESAN C A. DEPARTMENT BY : DR. S. SUNDARESAN - D R DATE OF HEARING : 19 / 0 1 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 / 0 1 /201 6 . O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER ALL T H E S E APPEAL S HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - VI , BANGALORE , DATED 31 / 1 0/201 4 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2004 - 05, 2005 - 06, 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 . 2. IN ALL THESE APPEALS, ONE OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH AND THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3 . SHRI S. VENKATESAN, CA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND DR. S. SUNDARESAN, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2 ITA NO S . 43 - 48 /PNJ/201 5 4 . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF C. RAMAIAH REDDY (339 ITR 210) (KAR.) , BUT HAS RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE NON - JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT S AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE. HE PLACED BEFORE US COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE BANGALORE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. PRATHIBHA JEWELLERY HOUSE VS. DCIT IN I.T.A.NO. 579 TO 585/BANG/2014 , WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: - 2. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL PARTICULARLY AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF SEARCH AND THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE REMAND RE PORT TO THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE A O HAS CLEARLY NOT ONLY NOT REBUTTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO HAS REMAINED SILENT AS TO WHETHER THE CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF SEARCH EXISTED AT ALL. IN SUCH CIRCUMS TANCES, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE AT LEAST SATISFIED HERSELF ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS BEFORE CONCLUDING THAT THAT THE JURISDICTION HAS BEEN VALIDLY EXERCISED BY THE AO IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMA I AH REDDY (CITED SUPRA) ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON. ALL THE SUBORDINATE COURTS AND AUTHORITIES ARE BOUND BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL COURT AND HAS TO FOLLOW THE SAME IN ITS LETTER AND SPIRIT. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DEEM IT FIT A N D PROPER AND REMAND THE APPEALS FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION U/S 153A AS WELL AS THE EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANT U/S 132A OF THE ACT. THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE MERITS OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AC AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A), ARE NOT ADJUDICATED AT THIS STAGE AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO AGITATE THE SAME IN CASE THE CIT(A) DECIDES THE GROUND OF JURISDICTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 3 ITA NO S . 43 - 48 /PNJ/201 5 IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE S IN THIS APPEAL IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR RE - ADJUDICATION ON SIMILAR LINES. 5. IN REPLY, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION. 6 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED THE RECORDS TO SATISFY ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE ON WARRANT AND THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS , RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. PRATHIBHA JEWELLERY HOUSE (SUPRA) , THE ISSUE S IN THIS APPEAL IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR RE - ADJUDICATION ON SIMILAR LINES AS IN THE CASE OF M/S. PRATHIBHA JEWELLERY HOUSE (SUPRA) EXTRACTED ABOVE. 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATIS TI CAL PURPOSE S . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THURSDAY , THE 19 TH DAY OF JANUARY , 201 6 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (N.S.SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 19 TH JANUARY , 201 6 . VR/ - 4 ITA NO S . 43 - 48 /PNJ/201 5 COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI