Jai Parkash, Chandigarh V. ITO, Panchkula

ITA 736/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9031 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PPQ
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY SHARMA SH MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 736/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SH. JAI PARKASH, VS. THE ITO, WARD-1, CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA PAN NO. ABYPP1375Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. AJAY SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 24.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.10.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, GURGAON DATED 30.3.2016 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT O RIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 25.03.2008 DECLARING NET TAXABL E INCOME OF RS. 7,960/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION RE GARDING THE TRANSACTION OF RS. 86,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF P URCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED REASONS FOR 2 REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 1 48 OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONS E TO THE NOTICE, ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER ON 28.4.2014 IN WHICH IT WA S STATED THAT RETURN ALREADY FILED ON 25.3.2008 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE APPEARE D THROUGH COUNSEL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TIME TO TIME AND FILED THE DETAILS. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO TICED THAT ASSESSEE UTILIZED CASH CREDIT LIMIT OF BANK FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES AND BANK HAS CHARGED INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,75,104/- OUT OF WHICH RS. 2,71,515/- PERTAINS TO PROPERTY TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE FAIL ED TO FURNISH EXPLANATION ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFF ICER ADDED A SUM OF RS. 2,71,515/-. FURTHER, ADDITION OF RS. 807/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EARNED ON SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS AD MITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT AS SESSEE FILED LETTER ON 28.4.2014 SOUGHT COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED U/ S 148 SO THAT OBJECTION CAN BE FILED BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DI D NOT PROVIDE COPY OF THE REASONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER V IDE HIS REPORT DATED 9.2.2016 SUBMITTED THAT REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE CASE WE RE HANDED OVER TO THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESS EE ON 28.4.2014, COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, AGAIN REITERATED THAT NO COPY OF REASONS HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND ALSO SUBMITTED THERE WAS NO PERSONAL I NTERACTION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 28.4.2014. AGAIN, ASSESSING O FFICER SUBMITTED HIS 3 REPORT AND STATED REQUEST FOR REASONS OF CASE WAS R ECEIVED ON DATED 28.4.2014 AND THAT ON THE SAME DAY COPY OF THE REAS ONS WERE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE. THE LD. CIT(A) IN TH IS BACKGROUND NOTED THAT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOW THAT VARIOUS NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND DETAILS WERE CALLED FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH WERE FILED BY ASSESSEE BUT THERE IS NO OBJECTION R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO REASONS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PAR TIES. 5. GROUND NOS. 1 & 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE NEED NO ADJUDICATION. GROUND NO.3 IS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THE SAME IS THEREFORE, DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 6. THE ONLY GROUND LEFT FOR CONSIDERATION IS GROUND NO.2 IN WHICH ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDE D U/S 148 WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD. DR PRODUCED THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WHICH HAVE BEEN PERUSED. LD. DR ALSO PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF THE LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DATED 20.4.2014 WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 28.4.2014 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT RET URN FILED ON 25.3.2008 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED U/S 148 OF THE I.T . ACT. THE LD. DR SHOWN THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON T HE SAME LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER SPEC IFICALLY RECORDED THAT 4 REASONS HAVE BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEES COU NSEL ON THE SAME DAY. THE LETTER DATED 20.4.2014 IS NOT DISPUTED IN WHICH ASSESSEE ASKED FOR COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED U/S 148. IT WAS A LSO FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 28.4.2014. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WAS THAT THERE WAS NO PERSONAL INTERACTI ON WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 28.4.2014 IS, THUS, INCORRECT AND FALSE. THE FILING OF THE LETTER ON 28.4.2014 IS NOT IN DISPUTE, BECAU SE IT WAS STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT RETURN ALREADY FILED MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I. T. ACT AND SEEKING COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN SUBMITTING BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT ON THE REQUEST O F ASSESSEES COUNSEL, COPY OF REASONS WERE PROVIDED TO HIM ON THE SAME DA Y I.E. 28.4.2014 . IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT AFTER 28.4.2014 THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON MANY DATES AND FILE D VARIOUS DETAILS BUT NO OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE OR HIS COUNSEL LATER ON FOR NON SUPPLY OF REASONS RECORDED U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE CIT(A) TO DISPUTE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D TO PROVE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REASONS RECORD ED U/S 148 HAVE NOT BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, L D. DR PRODUCED THE SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED TO COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON 2 8.4.2014. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS THUS HAS NO MERIT, THE SAM E IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 27 TH OCTOBER, 2016 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR