DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5205/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7325 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C S AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PARMINDER KAUR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 5205 /D EL/ 2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. N O. 5205 /DEL/2013 A.Y. : 1998 - 99 DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), NEW DELHI VS. M/S CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD., 3, LSC, PUSHP VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AABCA3223B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. CS AGARWAL, SR. ADV. & SH. RAVI PRATAP MALL, ADVOCATE ASSESSEE BY : SMT. PARMINDER KAUR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 09 - 09 - 2014 DATE OF ORDER : 26 - 09 - 2014 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : J M TH IS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) - X , NEW DELHI DATED 15 . 7 .2013 P ERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 . 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS UNDER: - ITA NO. 5205 /D EL/ 2013 2 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN OBSERVING THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BEYOND JURISDICTION IGNORING THE FACT THAT: A) THE FIRST ORDER DATED 2 0.1.2010 WAS PASSED BY THE AO FOR GIVING THE ASSESSEE RELIEF FROM THE OUSTANDING TAX DEMAND BY WAY OF GIVING APPEAL EFFECT ON THE ISSUE DECIDED BY THE ITAT IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE OR SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. B) IT IS APPARENT FROM THE FIRST ORDE R DATED 20.1.2010 WAS PASSED BY THE AO DID NOT ADJUDICATE ON THE RESTORED BACK ISSUE AND NO SUBMISSION WERE CALLED FOR OR ANY OPPORTUNITY ACCORDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IN THIS REGARD. C) THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.11.2010 WAS PASSED BY THE AO AFTER DUE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUING NOTICES AND TAKING ON RECORDS THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION THEREBY ADHERING TO THE BASIC TENETS OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PRACTICE IN THE CASE A S PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT THAT THE FACTS BE EXAMINED AFRESH. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN OBSERVING THAT THE ORDER UNDER CONSIDERATION IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION BY FAILING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT NO ASSESSMENT SHALL BE INVALID OR DEEMED TO BE INVALID MERELY BY REASON OF ANY MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION IN SUCH ASSESSMENT IF THE SAME IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. ITA NO. 5205 /D EL/ 2013 3 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIGHT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FORGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFO RE, NEED NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. DURING THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAD RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK HAVING ASS ESSMENT RECORDS ETC. AND VARIOUS COPIES OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT, HON BLE HIGH COURT AND TRIBUNAL AND ALSO FILED A SYNOPSIS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE . 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALREADY PASSED AN ORDER U/S. 254/143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 20.1.2010 WITH REFERENCE TO ITA NO. 2623/DEL/2004 DATED 30.7.2009. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY GIVEN EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT, THE ASSESSMENT PERTAINING TO THAT YEAR HAS REACHED A FINALITY AND NO PROCEEDINGS REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PASSING ANOTHER ORDER. IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS WELL AS THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT THAT NO ASSESSMENT ORDER , WHICH HAS REACHED A FINALITY , CAN BE DISTURBED OR REOPENED UNLESS ANY FRESH PROCEEDING IS INITIATED AND ACTION IS TAKEN AS PER THE LEGAL PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT LIKE 148/154/263 ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 19.11.2010 THAT THIS ORDER WAS ALSO ITA NO. 5205 /D EL/ 2013 4 BEING PASSED ON THE BASIS OF THE ITA NO. 2623/DEL/2004 DATED 31.7.2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTIONS OVER THIS CASE FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEA R ON THE BASIS OF THE DIRECTIONS OF ITAT, SINCE THE APPEAL EFFECT AND THE ORDER U/S. 254 HAD ALREADY REACHED FINALITY THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AO DATED 20.1.2010. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) HAS OPINED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE ANY JURISDICTION TO PASS THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.11.2010 AND THIS ORDER DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 6.1 WE FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE ADJUDICATION GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS STATED ABOVE, HENCE, W E FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, THE SAME DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFE REN CE, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN C OURT ON 26 / 09 /20 1 4 . SD/ - SD/ - [ G.D. AGRAWAL ] [ H.S. SIDHU ] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 26 / 09 /201 4 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NO. 5205 /D EL/ 2013 5