Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2), V. Sh.Manpreet Singh Bharmra # 815 Phase 3B-I Mohali,

ITA 495/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1622 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 495/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999-2000 THE ITO, VS SHRI MANPREET SINGH BHAMRA WARD 6(2), # 815, PHASE 3B-1, MOHALI. MOHALI. (NOW # 1231, SECTOR 43, CHANDIGARH) PAN/GIR NO. -------- (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL DATE OF HEARING : 01.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.12.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CHANDIGARH DATED 24.02.20 14 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 CHALLENGING THE CANCELLATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 1 48 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CASE, ORIGINAL ORDER WAS PASSED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.07.2010. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE ITAT 2 CHANDIGARH BENCH WHO HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 27.09.201 1 IN ITA 1372/CHD/2010 TO DECIDE THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE O F NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS REPRODUCED IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDER ARE AS UNDER : '8. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001, ORDER DATED 29.09.2010 AND FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID RATIO WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (APPEAL S) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN LINE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS IN THE ABOVE SAID APPEAL 9. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE PARTIAL RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE MATTER IS BEING SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSES TO DECIDED THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE/ SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148, 143(2), AND OR THE ORDER PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND WE ARE NOT PRESSING THE ISSUE ON MERITS. GROUND NOS. 5 TO 8 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ' 4. IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE FILED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY LD . CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT T HE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION WA S FILED IN MOHALI WARD ON 08.03.2000. THE DETAILS OF PROCESSING OF THE RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2 000 ARE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE BUT RETURN OF I NCOME OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 WAS PROCESSED BY ITO, WA RD 5(4), CHANDIGARH ON 26.03.2003. SUBSEQUENTLY, ITO 3 WARD 5(4) ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AFTER RECORDING FOLLOWING REASONS : 'SH. MANPREET SINGH SON OF SH. HARDEEP SINGH BHAMRA HAS MADE VARIOUS INVESTMENTS IN BANK DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1 999-2000 AND HAS NOT FILED ANY INCOME TAX RETURN AND SOURCE OF IN THESE BANKS DEPOSITS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THE ABOVE SAID CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ABOVE SAID BANK IS FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. I, THEREFORE, HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INVESTMENT OF ABOVE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961.' 5. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF T HE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR RE-OP ENING OF THE ASSESSMENT OBSERVED THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON THE PRESUMPTIO N THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOM E WHICH IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IN FACT, THE REASONS FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY ITO WARD 5(4) CHANDIGARH WHO HAD ALREADY PROCESSED THE RETURN OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, SO HOW HE CO ULD RECORD THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) , FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH ON IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJNEESH BANSAL IN ITA 55-57/CHD/2009 DATED 29.01.2010 CANCELLED THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALLOWED APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE. 4 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE IN BANK DEPOSITS AND PROPERTIES COULD BE EXAMINED IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 6(I) ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE HAS REFERRED TO PB-27 WHICH IS REASONS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. PB- 28 IS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING OF THE RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL 1999-2000 ON 08.03.2000. PB-17 IS THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJNEESH BANSAL (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY LD. CIT(APPE ALS) AND SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY OBSERVING THAT NO RETURN O F INCOME HAS BEEN FILED, RE-ASSESSMENT WAS DONE WHICH WAS QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNAL BECAUSE REASONS WERE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AS RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RE FERRED TO PB-29 WHICH IS REASONS RECORDED FOR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 WHICH ARE IDENTICAL AS HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND T HE LD. CIT(APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 24.02.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 BY FOLLOWING THE SAME JUDGEMENT OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJNEESH BANSAL (SUPRA) QUASHED THE RE-ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT DEPARTMENT DID NOT 5 FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, ON IDENTICAL FACTS THE ISS UE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE REASONS FOR RE-OPENI NG OF THE ASSESSMENT MAINLY ON THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE H AS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL WHICH FACT ITSELF IS INCORRECT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 ON 08.03.2000. COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMEN T OF FILING OF THE RETURN IS FILED AT PAGE 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED INCORRE CT AND NON-EXISTING REASONS FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN THE MATTER. WE RELY UPON DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES 180 ITR 319. THE IS SUE IS, THEREFORE, COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJNEE SH BANSAL (SUPRA). NO INFIRMITY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN FOLLOWING THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJNEESH BANSAL (SUPRA). WE MAY ALSO NOTE HERE THAT ON IDENTICAL F ACTS AND REASONS RECORDED FOR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 24.02.2014 QUASHED THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WHICH, NO DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAVE BEEN FIL ED. 6 THEREFORE, ON THIS REASON ALSO, ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 8. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE SAME I S ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD