SMT. NEETU BAI, BHARATPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR

ITA 773/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2222 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA JHA CIT DHK
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 773/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 NEETU BAI, 114, KAMLA ROAD, BADA MOHALLA, KUMHER GATE, BHARATPUR-321001 (RAJ) CUKE VS. I.T.O., WARD-2, BHARATPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: BMOPB 8251 K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA AGARWAL JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA JHA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 02/01/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/01/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FR OM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 28/08/2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2 008-09, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING: 1. THE REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE IT A CT, 1961. 2. NOT PROVIDING REASONS U/S 148(2). ITA 773/JP/2017_ NEETU BAI VS ITO 2 3. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE 2 YEARS RENTAL INCOME AS THE INCOME OF THE A.Y. 2008-09. 4. REJECTING THE CLAIM OF RS. 1,49,500/- TOWARDS EX PENSES INCURRED IN RENOVATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY SOLD WHILE CALCULATING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PROPERTY. 2. THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTIO N 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AT RS. 3 ,47,290/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE REOPENING IN GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL. 3. AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING, THE LD AR OF THE ASSES SEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF SOM E INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DDIT (INV), ALWAR VIDE LETTER DATED 18/ 03/2015 MENTIONING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 6.75 LACS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT NO. 30800 MAINTAINED WITH CANARA BA NK, BHARATPUR. THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CASH DEPOSI T IN BANK ACCOUNT. WHATEVER DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE BY CH EQUES ONLY, THEREFORE, THE INFORMATION WAS FALSE AND REOPENING T HAT THE BASIS OF SUCH FALSE INFORMATION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EY ES OF LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT APPLIED HIS MIND AT ALL. HAD HE SEEN THE BANK STATEMENT, HE COULD HAVE COME TO KNOW THAT THERE NO CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVED COPY OF REASONS RECORDED TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. HE PRAYED TO SET ASIDE THE PROCEEDINGS. ITA 773/JP/2017_ NEETU BAI VS ITO 3 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD SR. DR HAS RELIED ON T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. THE BENCH HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE . THE BENCH HAVE ALSO VERIFIED THE BANK STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT NO . 30800 OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED WITH CANARA BANK, BHARATPUR FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD WHEREIN THERE IS NO CASH DEPOSIT DURING THE P REVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 6.75 LACS IS BY WAY OF TWO CHEQUES, ONE OF RS. 5.00 L ACS AND ANOTHER WAS OF RS. 1.75 LACS. THUS, THE INFORMATION ON THE BA SIS THE NOTICE WAS ISSUE IS COMPLETELY A FALSE INFORMATION. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS GROUND. THUS, REOPENING ON THE BASIS OF FALSE INFORMATION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW FOR THE REASON THAT THE REASONS SO RECORDED MUST HAVE SOME RELEVANCY NEXUS WITH THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ALTHOUGH THE SUFFICIENCY AND ADEQUACY OF SUCH REASO N IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW BUT SOME RELEVANT NEXUS OF INFORMATION WIT H THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. THE ASSESSE E WAS ALSO NOT PROVIDED THE REASON RECORDED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. CO NSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BENCH IS OF THE VIEW TH AT REOPENING WAS ITA 773/JP/2017_ NEETU BAI VS ITO 4 BAD IN LAW, THEREFORE, THE ORDER MADE ON THE BASIS O F REOPENING DOES NOT STAND IN LAW. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS A LLOWED. 6. SINCE THE BENCH HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE PROCEED INGS INITIATED BY ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE , THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE ON OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/01/2018. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 03 RD JANUARY, 2018 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- NEETU BAI, BHARATPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD-2, BHARATPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 773/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR