Income Tax Officer-4(1), Lucknow V. Shri Ayub Sheikh, Lucknow

ITA 669/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4712 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 154

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.669/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 10 ITO 4 (1), RANGE 4, LUCKNOW VS. SHRI AYUB SEIKH, 165, GAURA BAGH, KURSI ROAD, ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW - 226020 PAN : AYOPS1670W (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 22/02/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 6 /02/2016 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) II, LUCKNOW ON 21/04/2014 FOR A.Y. 2009 10. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF NOTICE AND HENCE, THIS APPEAL WAS HEARD EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. LE ARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ONLY GRIEVANCE OF T HE REVENUE IS ABOUT DELETION OF THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 51,53,400/- MA DE BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF THIS AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUN T AND COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED AS PER THE A.O. 3. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSME NT ORDER. 2 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED HIS SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THRO UGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT ON PAGE NO. 10 OF HIS ORDER, A CATEGORICAL FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSME NT FRAMED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 144/147 IS UNJUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE RE OPENING IS BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING ON MERIT OF THE ADDITION BY SAYING THAT THE A.O. HAS OVERLOOKED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ON SAME ISSUE, WHICH HAS ATTAINED FINALITY BECAUSE IT WAS NEITHER RECTIFIED U/S 154 NO MODIFIE D U/S 263. ON PAGE 4 OF HIS ORDER, HE HAS REPRODUCED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D BY THE A.O. U/S 143 (3) ON 30.12.2011 AND AS PER THE SAME, ON THIS RECE IPT OF RS. 51.53 LACS, HE APPLIED N P RATE OF 8% AND COMPUTED INCOME AT RS. 4 12,272/- AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 189,880/- AN D SOME OTHER INCOME OF RS. 60,367/-, TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 662, 520/-. NOW IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUN T OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK OF RS. 51.53 LACS ON WHICH HE EARLIER ASSESSED INCOME @ 8%. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GAR ODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:26 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. *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