Sri. D.S. Kumar, Tumkur V. CIT, Bangalore

ITA 698/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9299 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.698(BANG) 2015 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05) SHRI D.S.KUMAR, SRINIVASA NILAYA RAILWAY STATION ROAD, TUMKUR PAN NO.ACRPS1774L APPELLANT VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALURU-7, BENGALURU RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : MISS NEERA MALHOTRA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 20-10-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03-11-201 6 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K.GARODIA, AM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT, BENGALURU-7, BENGALURU DATED 25- 03-2015 U/S 263 IT ACT, 1961 FOR A. Y. 2004-05. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED C . I . T. U/S 263 OF THE ACT , IN SO FAR AS IT I S AGAINST THE APPELLANT, IS OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PR OBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT SINCE THE VERY NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT WAS ILLEGAL IN AS MUCH AS THE SAME WAS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING FISHING AND ROVING ENQUIRES AS THERE WER E NO GROUNDS STATED BY THE LEARNED CIT FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND THE APPELLANT WAS MERELY CALLED UPON THE APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT AND GIVE DETAILS AND THUS , THE VERY INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 OF THE ACT , IS ILLEGAL AND ITA NO.698(BANG)2015 2 VOID AB-INITIO 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED C . I . T. FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR MUCH LESS AN ERR OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WARRANTING REVISION U/S.263 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE C . I . T . IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE AND REQUIRES TO BE CA NCELLED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT, FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO SET-ASIDE THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNTS I NVESTED BY THE APPELLANT IN BUSINESS AS THE SAME WA S EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LEARNED A.O. AND THUS , THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS ERR ONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 5. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGE D AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, YOUR APPELLANT HUMBLY PRA YS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE RENDERED AND THE APPELLANT MAY BE AWARDED COSTS IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND ALSO ORDER FOR THE REFUND OF THE INSTITUTION FEES AS PART OF THE C OSTS. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE CIT ON 25 -03-2015 I.E. IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15 AND THEREFORE, THE CONSEQUEN TIAL ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE AO WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FY: 2014-15 BUT TILL DATE, NO CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED B Y THE AO. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE BENCH THAT IF N O CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE AO TILL NOW, THE SAME IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND NOW NO CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER CAN BE PASSED BY THE AO AND THE REFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. IN REPLY, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOTHING TO SAY. 4. THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT T HE APPEAL HAS TO BE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ITA NO.698(BANG)2015 3 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE F IND THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.153 OF THE IT ACT, 1961, CONSEQUE NTIAL ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE AO ON OR BEFORE 31-03-2016 AND I T WAS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT NO CON SEQUENTIAL ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE AO TILL NOW. SINCE THE PASSING OF CON SEQUENTIAL ORDER HAS NOW BECOME BARRED BY LIMITATION, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS BECAUSE WHATEVER BE THE DECISION EVEN I F THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED, IT WILL BE OF ACADEMIC INTERES T ONLY AS THERE WAS NO CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER CAN BE PASSED BY THE AO EVEN IF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS INFRUCTUOUS AND DO NOT ENTER INTO VARIOUS SPECIFIC GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER PLACE: BANGALORE: D A T E D : 03.11.2016 AM * COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER AR, ITAT, BANGALORE ITA NO.698(BANG)2015 4 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S. .. 4 DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES T O THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER DOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT . 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 11 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. 12 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER