KAWALJEET SINGH SACHDEVA, MUMBAI V. ITO 29 (2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5833/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5864 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS MAMTA BANSAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY , JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM ./ I.T.A. NO . 5833 / MUM/ 2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) KAWALJEET SINGH SACHDEVA A - 17, MODEL TOWN, BAL RAJESHWAR ROAD, MULUND (EAST) MUMBAI - 400 080 / VS. ITO - 29(2)(1 ), KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 051 . ./ ./ PAN NO. AA NPS 9920 Q ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ADITYA RAMCHANDRAN, AR / RESPONDENTBY : MRS. MAMTA BANSAL, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 30.01 .2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.04.2020 / O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. PR. COMMIS S IONER OF INCOME TAX - 29 IN SHORT REFERRED AS LD. P CIT , MUMBAI, DATED 29.03.2019 FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR (IN SHORT A Y ) 2010 - 11 . 2 I.T.A. NO. 5833 /MUM/201 9 KAWALJEET SINGH SACHDEVA 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE NOTICE FROM THE RECORDS THAT THERE IS DELAY OF 102 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. AFTER HEARING THE COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DELAY OF ONLY 102 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AND KEEPING IN VIEW T HE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR VRS. MSTKITZI, AIR 1987 S.C. 1353/(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 102 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED TO BE HEARD ON MERITS. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF M/S FIRETEX PROTECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SECURITY EQUIPMENTS. ON VERIFICATION OF ITD SYSTEM, IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INCOME UNDER THE HEAD RENT AND INTEREST INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AGGREGATING TO RS. 4,63,349/ - . DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ENTERED INTO PROPERTY TRANSACTION AMOUNTING TO RS. 13,50,000/ - AND ALSO INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUND AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,52,106/ - IN PNB ASSET MANAGEMENT AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED 3 I.T.A. NO. 5833 /MUM/201 9 KAWALJEET SINGH SACHDEVA WITH VIJAYA BANK SHOWS A TOTAL DEPOSIT OF RS. 27,37,945/ - . ACCORDINGLY, PROC EEDING U/S 147 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED AFTER SERVING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 03.03.16. IN RESPONSE, AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RELEVANT INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF AR, AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S . 147 OF THE ACT THEREBY MAKING ADDITIONS. SUBSEQUENTLY AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. 4. FURTHER, LD. PCIT PASSED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT AGAIN ST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY AO U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT . 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE, ORDER ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE NOTICE FROM THE RECORD THAT LD. PCIT HAS INVOK ED SECTION 263 OF THE ACT TREATING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT BY THE AO AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. BUT THE ORDER PASSED BY AO U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 4 I.T.A. NO. 5833 /MUM/201 9 KAWALJEET SINGH SACHDEVA 147 OF THE ACT IS ALREADY SET ASIDE BY LD. CIT(A) ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT IS NOT A VALID ASSESSMENT ORDER. NOW, ON SUCH ORDER, LD. PCIT CANNOT INVOKE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AS INVALID ORDER. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS QUASHED AS INFRUCTUOUS. THIS FACT WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY LD. DR. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. PCIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT VALID, ACCORDINGLY IT IS QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. HENCE, THE GROUNDS RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 8 . IN THE NET RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD APRIL 2020 . SD/ - SD/ - ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 23 . 04 .2020 SR.PS . DHANANJAY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5 I.T.A. NO. 5833 /MUM/201 9 KAWALJEET SINGH SACHDEVA 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F I LE / BY ORDER, . / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI