Sh. Janak Raj Prop. M/s. Janak Raj, MANSA V. The Income-tax Officer, MANSA

ITA 94/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1409 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 06-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J K GUPTA; JYOTSNACA
• Keywords: Gift; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH ; AMRITSAR (SMC). BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMEBR I.T.A. NO. 94(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05 PAN :ABHPG6211D SH. JANAK RAJ VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PROP. M/S. JANAK RAJ VIJAY KUMAR WARD 1(4), MANSA. MANSA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. J.K.GUPTA, ADV. & MS. JYOTSNA,C A RESPONDENT BY:SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 06/10/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06 /10/2015 ORDER THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2013 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), BATHIN DA. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RE-OP ENING OF THE CASE. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.125100/-. HE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE RELIEF OF RS. 100000/- AT LEAST BEING THE GIFT FROM HIS FATHER. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.125100/- ONLY ON THE REASON THAT THE GIFT FROM FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ITA NO.94(ASR)/2014 2 INCORPORATED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE . SO, THE ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.100000/ -. 2. APROPOS GROUND NO. 1, THE ASSESSES CHALLENGE TO THE RE-OPENING OF THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN D ISPOSED OF BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME, THE LD. A/R OF THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AS TO HOW THE RE- ASSESSMENT WAS AGAINST THE FACTS AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. ACCORD INGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GONE WRONG IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE. A COPY OF THE SAID WRITTEN ARGUMENTS DATED 15.09.2015 HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE US. PARAS 2 & 3 OF THESE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS READ AS FOLLOWS: 2. THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RE-OPENED AFT ER 4 YEARS ON THE BASIS OF A COMPLAINT WITHOUT VERIFYING THE COMPLAIN T AND COMPLAINANT. IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS RECEIV ED BY THE AO AND AS TO WHETHER ANY INQUIRY WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT IN QUESTION AND WHAT WAS THE RESULT OF THAT ENQUIRY OR THE CASE WAS RE- OPENED WITH OUT ENQUIRY. IT SEEMS THAT NO ENQUIRY WAS MADE FROM ANY PERSON AS THE SAME WAS NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSES SEE AT ANY STAGE. THE NOTICE WAS SERVED AFTER OFFICE HOURS AT 5.45 P .M. ON 29.03.2011. SO, IT IS NOT A VALID SERVICE. EVEN IT IS AFTER SUN SET. RECENTLY, A COMPLAINT WAS RECEIVED BY THE INCOME T AX DEPARTMENT AGAINST KAMAL SINGLA, CA AND THE SAME WA S FILED AS THE COMPLAINANT DID NOT COME FORWARD ON SUMMON. THE SAM E PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS A CLEAR CASE OF DISCRIMINATION. ITA NO.94(ASR)/2014 3 3. THAT THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN RE-OPENING THE CASE AFTER 4 YEARS WITHOUT GETTING APPROVAL FROM JCIT, RANGE-1, BATHIN DA AS THE PROPOSED ADDITION AS PER REASONS RECORDED IS MORE THAN RS.100000/-. FIRSTLY, IT WAS NOT TAKEN ON 25.03.2011 AS THE REA SONS WERE ALSO RECORDED ON 25.03.2011. 4. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUMMARILY REJECTED T HE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED U NABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AS TO HOW THE RE-ASSESSMENT WAS AGAINST THE FACTS AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PARAS 2 & 3 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AT ALL. THEREFORE, THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL, ON THIS ISSUE, IS A NON-SPEAKIN G ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, I DEEM IT APPR OPRIATE TO REMIT THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. 5. THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION MADE SHALL ALSO BE DE CIDED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION TO BE TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE I SSUE OF REOPENING OF THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6TH OCTO BER, 2015 SD/- (A.D. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER /SKR/ DATED: 06/10/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH.JANAK RAJ, MANSA. 2. THE ITO, WARD 1(4), MANSA.3. THE CIT(A), BATHIND A 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, ASR.