Income Tax Officer -3(2), Kanpur V. Shri Jheendu Ram, Kanpur

ITA 565/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 56523714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.565/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006 - 07 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(2), KANPUR. VS. SHRI JHEENDU RAM, PROP. M/S BHARAT TRAILOR SERVICE 30 - A, KALPI ROAD, KANPUR. PAN:AGGPR0515D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI SWARAN SINGH, C. A. DATE OF HEARING 19/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 3 /06/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) - II, KANPUR DATED 28/03/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 2007. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.2011 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 13(3)/263 OF THE I.T.ACT,1961 BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE A.O . ON 27.01.2011, 31.01.2011, 18.02.2011 & 08.03.2011 AND CO - OPERATED WITH A.O. IN COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT RAISING ANY OBJECTION BEFORE A.O. THAT PROCEEDINGS MADE AFTER 31.12.2010 ARE BEYOND THE TIME ALLOWED U/S 153(2A) OF THE I.T.ACT.1 961. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.2011 2 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 13(3)/263 OF THE I.T.ACT,1961, WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY HEARD TO THE A.O. U/S 250 OF THE L.T .ACT,1961. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.2011 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3)/263 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED I N U/S 153(2A) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961, THE ASSESSING OFFICER 'MAY' COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AT ANY TIME. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - II, KANPUR DATED 28.03.2013 NEEDS TO BE QUASHED AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 28.03.2011 TO BE RESTORED. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MENTIONED ABOVE AND / OR TO ADD ANY FRESH GROUNDS AS AND WHEN IT IS REQUIRED TO DO SO. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. AS AGAINST THI S, LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: (I) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS KAMLA DEVI (SMT.) [1996] 217 ITR 330 (ALL) (II) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS MAHI VALLEY HOTELS AND RESORTS [2006] 287 ITR 360 (GUJ) (III) ORDER OF I.T.A.T. BANGALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S AMITI SOFTWARE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [I.T.A. NO.540/BANG/2012]. 5. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF ALL T HESE JUDGMENTS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK ON PAGE NO. 50, 51, 57 TO 59 AND 60 TO 70 RESPECTIVELY. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE ASSESSMENT WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED ON 15/ 09/2008 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, CIT PASSED AN ORDER U/S 263 ON 13/07/2009 AND SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15/09/2008 AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH 3 LAW. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF CIT PASSED U/S 263, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 18/11/2009 SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT U/S 263 ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS. THEREAFTER, THE DEPARTMENT WENT IN WRIT AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEREAFTER, CIT - II, KANPUR PASSED ANOTHER ORDER U/S 263 ON 08/03/2010 CANCELLING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 15/09/2008 AND RESTORED THE CASE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSMENT. THEREAFTER, THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 28/03/2011. AGAINST THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CONTENDED BEFORE HIM THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED BY CIT(A) VIDE PARA 6 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED B ELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT PLACED BEFORE ME AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, I FIND THAT THE RATIO OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. SMT. KAMLA DEVI (1996) 217 I.T.R. 330 RELIED UPON BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT IS FULLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE A.O. AFTER EXPIRY OF THE LIMITATION I.E. 31.12.2010 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. I, THEREFORE, ANNUL THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PASSED ON 28.03.2011. 6.1 NOW WE FIND THAT THE SECOND PROVISO TO SUB SECTION ( 2A ) OF SECTION 153 IS RELEVANT AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SA KE OF READY REFERENCE: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2005 BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2011, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUB - SECTION SHALL HAVE EFFECT AS IF FOR THE WORDS 'ONE YEAR', THE WORDS 'NINE MONTHS' HAD BEEN SUBSTITUTED. 4 6.2 AS PER THE ABOVE SECOND PROVISO TO SUB SECTION ( 2A ) OF SECTION 1 53, WE FIND THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT IS WITHIN 9 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER IS PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 263. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY CIT U/S 263 ON 08/03/2010 AND, THER EFORE, THE TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER EXPIRES ON 31/12/2010. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LI MITATION AND THEREFORE, HE HAS RIGHTLY ANNULLED THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CA PTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 3 /06/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR