ITO, New Delhi V. M/s S.N. Bros Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4939/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82006 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R R KUMAR
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 4939 /DEL/201 2 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2001 - 02 ) ITO VS. M/S S.N. BROS LTD. WARD - 7 ( 1 ), WZ - 110, SHAKUR PUR NEW DELHI. VILLAGE, NEW DELHI PAN: AA ECS6511M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: - SH. B. R. R. KUMAR, SR.DR. ASSESSEE BY: - NONE DATE OF HEARING: 26.11.2014 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 26.11.2014 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11 .0 6 .201 2 OF LD. CIT (APPEALS) - X II , NEW DELHI. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NOBODY WAS PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE, WE THEREFORE, PROCEED ED EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE, AND THE APPEAL I S DECIDED ON MERIT, A FTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR . T HE ONLY EFFECTIVE GRO UNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A), ON FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, ERRED IN QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT: - 2 A) BECAUSE, PROVISION OF CLAUSE (B) OF THE SUB SECTION 3 OF SECTION 124 OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AS RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT FI LED. B) BECAUSE, STATUTORY PROVISION OF SUB SECTION 3 AND 4 OF THE SECTION 124 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, CONFERRED STATUTORY PROTECTION TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ITO, WARD 9(1), NEW DELHI OVER THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE . C) BECAUSE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ITS OWN WRONG BY NOT COMPLYING WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF FILING A RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND NOT INVOKING PROVISION OF SUB SECTION 4 OF THE SECTION 124 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT RELATES TO THE QUASHING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS TH E ACT ). 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THIS CASE WAS RESTORED TO THE LD. CIT(A) BY ITAT G BENCH, NEW DELHI F IRSTLY, TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION . T HE LD. CIT(A) ASKED THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO WHO FURNISHED THE REPORT VIDE LETTER DATED 22.05.2012. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED A CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION FROM THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER APPRECIATING THE CONTENTS OF THE REMAND REPORT AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE 3 ASSESSEE CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT THE AO WHO PASSED THE ORDER U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 OF THE ACT, WAS NOT HAVING JURISDICTION AND OBSERVED AS UNDER: FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS S.N. BROS PRIVATE LIMITED. IN VIEW OF THIS THE JURISDICTION FALLS WITH CIRC LE/WARD - 7(1). THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER - 9(1) CATEGORICALLY STATES THERE WAS NO ORDER U/S 127 FOR CHANGE OF JURISDICTION. FURTHER MORE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FILING HIS INCOME TAX RETURN WITH CIRCLE/WARD - 7(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2002 - 03, 2003 - 04 AND 2005 - 06. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE LIES WITH CIRCLE / WARD - 7(1). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE RE - ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 147/144 PASSED BY THE ITO, WARD - 9(1) IS HEREBY QUASHED, AND THERE I S NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE ON OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED BY ITO, WARD - 7(1) U/S 143(3) PREVAILS AND IS VALID. 5. NOW, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL , THE LD. DR ALTHOUGH STATED THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE AO BY THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT TENABLE , HOWEVER, HE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE OBSERVATIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD , I T IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ONLY ON THIS BASIS THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE A O WARD - 9(1), NEW DELHI , I T WAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THERE WA S NO ORDER U/S 127 FOR CHANGE OF JURISDICTION AND THAT THE AO WARD - 7(1) WAS HAVING JURISDICTION AND PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE , ARE OF THE VIEW THAT FINDIN G S GIVEN BY THE LD. 4 CIT(A) DO NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART AND ACCORDINGLY , WE DO NOT SEE MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 /11/2014. SD/ - SD/ - (A. T. VARKEY) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 26 /11/2014 *AK VERMA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR