Smt. Kamlesh Goyal, Panchkula V. ITO, W-2, Panchkula

ITA 761/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7761 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND SUDERSHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK GOYAL CAS
• Keywords: Reason to believe
• Section: 80C; 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH, SMC, CHANDIGARH , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 761/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SMT. KAMLESH GOYAL, H.NO. 987,SECTOR 9, PANCHKULA THE ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA ./PAN NO: AJOPG6961D / APPELLANT '# /RESPONDENT $% & ' /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL GOYAL & SHRI ASHOK GOYAL , CAS & ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI ARVIND SUDERSHAN, JCIT ( ) & % * /DATE OF HEARING : 12.03.2020 +,- & % * / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.08.2020 / ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2019 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING OF THE CASE U/S 148. 2. THAT THERE WAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO HAD ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. ITA NO. 761-CHD-2019 SMT. KAMLESH GOY AL, PANCHKULA 2 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 80C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE REBATE U/S 24 FOR RS. 1,23,644/- FOR WHICH, THE AMOUNT WAS BORROWED FOR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. 5. THAT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS FURNISHED HAS BEEN IGNORED BY THE CIT(A). 6. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,06,842/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY FOR WHICH, THE SOURCE IS AVAILABLE. 7. THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEAR D OR DISPOSED OFF. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') BY WA Y OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT HI MSELF FORM THE BELIEF THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSM ENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF BO RROWED SATISFACTION OF HIS COLLEAGUE. EXPLAINING THE FACTS, THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL REOPENING OF THE AS SESSMENT WAS INITIATED BY THE ITO WARD-5(1), CHANDIGARH. HE HAD RECORDED THE REASONS FOR THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND HAD ALSO TAKEN THE NECESSARY APPROVAL ITA NO. 761-CHD-2019 SMT. KAMLESH GOY AL, PANCHKULA 3 FROM THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES U/S 151 OF THE ACT IN THIS RESPECT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE SAID REOP ENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID ASSESSING OF FICER OF WARD 5(1), CHANDIGARH HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS LIVING IN PANCHKULA FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS. THEREAFTER, THE FILE WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE ITO, WARD-5(1) CHAN DIGARH TO ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA. THE ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA CONTI NUED WITH THE SAME ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE FILED DET AILED OBJECTIONS PLEADING THAT ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA HAD HIMSELF NE ITHER FORMED THE BELIEF NOR RECORDED REASONS TO THE FACT THAT THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND FURTHER NO APPROVAL U/S 151 WAS TAKEN. HOWEVER, ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA DISMISSED THE OBJEC TIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FRAMED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT. THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ITO, WARD-2 PANCHKU LA I.E ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HIMSELF APPLY HIS M IND TO THE FACTS AND DID NOT RECORD THE REASONS THAT THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE SIMPLY CONTINUED WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE INITIATED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER WHO DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DO SO. 4. THE LD. DR COULD NOT REBUT THE AFORESAID FACTS O N THE FILE. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, IT IS A PPARENT THAT INITIALLY THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED, THE REAS ONS FOR REOPENING OF ITA NO. 761-CHD-2019 SMT. KAMLESH GOY AL, PANCHKULA 4 THE ASSESSMENT WERE RECORDED AND APPROVAL U/S 151 W AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO FRAME THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ON THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS DONE BY THE SAID ITO, WARD 5(1), CHANDIGARH WERE LEGALLY NOT VALID BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND, HENCE, THE SAME WERE TO B E TREATED AS VOID AB INITIO AND NON EST. THE ITO, WARD-2. PANCHKULA, UN DER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS SUPPOSED TO APPLY HIS MIND TO TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THEN, IF BEING SATISF IED, HE SHOULD HAVE RECORDED THE REASONS THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, THE ITO, WARD 2, PANCHKULA CON TINUED WITH THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE VOID AND NON EST AND, THEREF ORE, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING NOT INITIATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IS WRONG AND ILLEGAL. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE, THE ASSESSMEN T FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE IS HEREBY QUASHE D. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. THIS APPEAL COULD NOT BE DECIDED EARLIER DUE TO NON -FUNCTIONING OF THE BENCH ON ACCOUNT OF CURFEW / LOCKDOWN IN THE WA KE OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 05.08.2020. SD/- ( / SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 05.08 .2020 ITA NO. 761-CHD-2019 SMT. KAMLESH GOY AL, PANCHKULA 5 .. /&' %0121% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. '# / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( 3% / CIT 4. ( 3% ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. 14 ' % 5 , *5 , 6789 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8: ) / GUARD FILE / ( / BY ORDER, ; / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR