Income Tax Officer-2(3), Kanpur V. Raj Kumar Kukreja, Kanpur

ITA 703/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 70323714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SWARN SINGH
• Keywords: Block assessment; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKN BENCH A : LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 703 /LKW/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006 - 2007 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2(3), VS. SHRI RAJ KUMAR KUKREJA, KANPUR. 111/286, HARSH NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:AGUPK1128K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.51/LKW/2013 (IN I.T.A. NO. 703 /LKW/201 3) ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006 - 2007 SHRI RAJ KUMAR KUKREJA, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2(3) , KANPUR. KANPUR. (OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SWARN SINGH, C. A. DATE OF HEARING : 26 / 11 /2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/12/2013 ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: TH IS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) , INTER ALIA, ON VARIOUS GROUNDS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 2 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE AO HAD ISSUED NOTICES U/S 143(2) ON 14.07.2007 AND 16.04.2008 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 AS FILED ON 26.07.2006. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - II , KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN IGNO RING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE CO - OPERATED IN THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO AND PROVIDED VARIOUS DETAILS TO THE AO LEADING TO THE FINALITY OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, WITHOUT RAISING ANY OBJECTION TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICES U/S 143(2) BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( II ), KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT BY TREATING IT AS NON - EST AND VOID AB INITIO BY RELYING ON THE ORDER OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON(321 ITR 372) WHICH IS GIVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT CASES AND APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 292BB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( II ), KA NPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT BY TREATING IT AS NON - EST AND VOID AB - INITIO BY IGNORING THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 292B AND 292BB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - II, KANPU R DATED 29.07.2013 NEEDS TO BE QUASHED AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 12.12.2008. 6. 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 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE RETURN WAS FILED IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED PERSON THROUGH ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES/SON SHRI PARVINDER KUKERJA ON 26/06/2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,69,620/ - FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01/04/2005 TO 02/11/2005. BUT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED PERSON SHRI RAJ KUMAR KUKREJA WITHOUT HAVING REALIZED THAT THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HAN DS OF DECEASED PERSON. IT CAN ONLY BE MADE THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. THE CIT(A) CAREFULLY EXAMINED THIS ASPECT AND HAVING NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED PERSON IS NON EST AND VOID AB INITIO, HAS ANNULLED THE ASSESSMENT . 3. AGAINST THE ANNULMENT, THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL AND SIMPLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BESIDES , THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS ALSO BEL OW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT, THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE PURSUANT TO THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY CBDT. 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS ADMITTEDLY FRAMED ON THE DECEASED PERSON, WH ICH IS NON EST IN LAW, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ANNULLED THE ASSESSMENT. MOREOVER, THE TAX EFFECT IS ALSO BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT, THEREFORE, IN ANY CASE THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND WE DISMISS THE SAME. 4 5. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THEREIN THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE APPEAL IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. SINCE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED, CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND STANDS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/12/2013 ) SD/. SD/. (A. K. GARODIA) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23/12/2013 *CL SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR