Sh. Sucha Singh, Sirsa V. Pr. CIT, Hisar

ITA 611/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6856 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2018
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 45(5); 56; 263; 28

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH B, CHANDIGARH !, ' # $ , . .. . & , '( # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR , A M ./ ITA NO. 601/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 ./ ITA NO. 606/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 ./ ITA NO. 608/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 ./ ITA NO. 611/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SH. NAND LAL S/O SH. NANAK CHAND VILL. DHANI NATAR, DISTT. SIRSA PR. CIT AAYAKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-14, HISAR ./ PAN NO: AIJPL1384P / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT SMT. SURESH RANI W/O SH. GANESH DASS H.NO. 64, DWARKA PURI, SIRSA PR. CIT AAYAKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-14, HISAR ./ PAN NO: AEXPR3886A / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT SH. SUKHDEV SINGH S/O SH. GURDAYAL SINGH #55, GALI BALDEV SINGH WALI KHAIRPUR, SIRSA PR. CIT AAYAKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-14, HISAR ./ PAN NO: DZFPS5546Q / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT SH. SUCHA SINGH S/O SH. KARTAR SINGH DHANI AMAR SINGH, KHAIRPUR SIRSA PR. CIT AAYAKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-14, HISAR ./ PAN NO: DNXPS9337B / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT 2 ./ ITA NO. 650/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. TEJ MOHAN SINGH # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI. RAM MOHAN SINGH $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 09/10/2018 '()* ! &/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/01/2019 ')/ ORDER PER BENCH: ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE PR. CIT, HISAR, HARYANA DT. 26/02/2018 . 2. SINCE THE ISSUES RAISED IN ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE COMMON THEREFORE THEY ARE BEING DECIDED BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. FOR DEALING WE SHALL TAKE ITA NO. 601/ CHD/2018 AS A LEAD CASE WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 601/CHD/2018: 1 THAT ORDER DATED 26.2.2018 U/S 263(1) OF THE ACT BY LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HISAR HAS BEEN MADE WIT HOUT SATISFYING THE STATUTORY PRECONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACT AND IS THEREFORE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THUS, DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AS SUCH. 1.1 THAT THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ONCE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON EXAMINAT ION OF THE FACTS ON RECORD AND AFTER MAKING ALL POSSIBLE ENQUIRIES HAD ACCEPTE D CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THEN SUCH AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE REGARDED A S ERRONEOUS IN AS MUCH AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE MERELY BECAU SE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAD A DIFFERENT OPINION AND THAT TOO, WITHOUT HAVING ESTABLISHED IN ANY MANNER THAT, VIEW ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AN IMPOSSIBLE VIEW. 1.2 THAT VARIOUS ADVERSE FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN ORDER ARE BASED ON FU NDAMENTAL MISCONCEPTION OF FACTS AND LAW, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED AND THE REFORE UNTENABLE. SH. RAJ KUMAR KAMBOJ S/O SH. GOPI RAM VPO: SIKANDARPUR, KHAIRPUR SIRSA PR. CIT AAYAKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-14, HISAR ./ PAN NO: DNXPS9337B / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT 3 1.3 THAT THE FINDING THAT 'ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NOT BEE N PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION RENDERED BY JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT AND SUPREME COURT BY REJECTING THE SLP, THEREFORE THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE' IS ALSO NOT BASED ON CORRECT A PPRECIATION OF FACTS ON RECORD AND HENCE UNSUSTAINABLE. 1.4 THAT THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX OTHERWISE HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ONCE AN ORDER HAS BEEN MA DE U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT THEN, NO NOTICE CAN BE ISSUED TO REVISE AN ORDER U/ S 143(3) OF THE ACT AS ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT MERGES WITH AN ORDER U/S 143(3)/1 47 OF THE ACT. 2 THAT FURTHER THE ORDER MADE U/S 263 BY INVOKING EXP LANATION 2(D) OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT GRANTING ANY O PPORTUNITY AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE EXPLANATION AND THEREFORE SUCH A N ORDER IS OTHERWISE VITIATED. 3 THAT THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX HAS ALSO ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT IN GIVING DIRECTION TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADD THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1361613/- REPRESENTING 50% OF THE ENH ANCED COMPENSATION OF RS. 2723226/- ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT. 3.1 THAT WHILE MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION THE LE ARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRONEOUSLY RELIED O N THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJIT SINGH V. UOI CWP NO. 15506/2013 DATED 14.1.2014 AND OVERLOOKING THE FOLL OWING JUDGMENTS OF APEX COURT: I) 315 ITR 1(SC) CIT VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) (DATED 16. 7.2009) II) 367 ITR 4 98(SC) CIT VS. GOVINDBHAI MAMAIYA (DA TED 4.9.2014)) III) C.A. NO, 13053/2017 CIT VS. CHET RAM (HUF) (DA TED 12.9.2017) IV) C.A. NO. 15041/2017 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS VS. HARI SINGH AND ORS V) C.A. NO. 18475/2017 INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-2 RAJ KOT VS. MUKTANANDGIRI MAHESHGIRI 3.2 THAT THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT IN INVOKING SECTION 56(2)(V II) READ WITH SECTION 57(IV) OF THE ACT TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 606/CHD/2018: THAT ORDER DATED 26.2.2018 U/S 263(1) OF THE ACT BY LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HISAR HAS BEEN MADE WIT HOUT SATISFYING IHC STATUTORY PRECONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACT AND IS THEREFORE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THUS, DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AS SUCH. 1.1 THAT THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ONCE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON EXAMINAT ION OF THE FACTS ON RECORD AND AFTER MAKING ALL POSSIBLE ENQUIRIES HAD ACCEPTE D CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THEN SUCH AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE REGARDED A S ERRONEOUS IN AS MUCH AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE MERELY BECAU SE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAD A DIFFERENT OPINION AND THAT TOO, WITHOUT HAVING ESTABLISHED IN ANY MANNER THAT, VIEW ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AN IMPOSSIBLE VIEW. 1.2 THAT VARIOUS ADVERSE FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN ORDER ARE BASED ON FU NDAMENTAL MISCONCEPTION OF FACTS AND LAW, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED AND THE REFORE UNTENABLE. 1.3 THAT THE FINDING THAT 'ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NOT BEE N PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX AC T. 1961 AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION RENDERED BY JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT AND SUPREME COURT BY REJECTING THE SLP, THEREFORE THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE' IS ALSO NOT BASED ON CORRECT A PPRECIATION OF FACTS ON RECORD AND HENCE UNSUSTAINABLE. 4 2 THAT FURTHER THE ORDER MADE U/S 263 BY INVOKING E XPLANATION 2(D) OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT GRANTI NG ANY OPPORTUNITY AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE EXPLANATION AND THEREFORE SUCH A N ORDER IS OTHERWISE VITIATED. 3 THAT THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ALSO ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT IN GIVING DIRECTION TO ASSESSING OF FICER TO ADD THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 33,66,367/- REPRESENTING 50% OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION OF RS. 67,32,734/- ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(37) OF TH E ACT. 3.1 THAT WHILE MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION THE LE ARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRONEOUSLY RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT O F HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJIT SINGH V. U OI CWP NO. 15506/2013 DATED 14.1.2014 AND OVERLOOKING THE FOLLOWING JUDGM ENTS OF APEX COURT: I) 315 ITR 1(SC) CIT VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) (DATED 16. 7.2009) II) 367 ITR 4 98(SC) CIT VS. GOVINDBHAI MAMAIYA (DA TED 4.9.2014)) III) C.A. NO, 13053/2017 CIT VS. CHET RAM (HUF) (DA TED 12.9.2017) IV) C.A. NO. 15041/2017 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS VS. HARI SINGH AND ORS V) C.A. NO. 18475/2017 INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-2 RAJ KOT VS. MUKTANANDGIRI MAHESHGIRI 3.2 THAT THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT IN INVOKING SECTION 56(2)(V III) READ WITH SECTION 57