The ACIT, 3(1), V. Shri Ashok Anand,

ITSSA 72/IND/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8694 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-12-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H P VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: K K SINGH

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.71/IND/2007 BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 SHRI ASHOK ANAND BHOPAL PAN ADBPA-3312-K APPELLANT VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(2) BHOPAL RESPONDENT IT(SS)A NO.72/IND/2007 BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(2) BHOPAL APPELLANT VS SHRI ASHOK ANAND BHOPAL RESPONDENT 2 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H.P. VERMA AND SHRI ASHISH GOYAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. SINGH, CIT DR O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 7.3.2007 ON VARIOUS GROU NDS AS CONTAINED IN THE RESPECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. AT T HE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 8.11.201 0 HAS REVERSED/SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13.10.2006. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS (A COPY OF THE ORDER WAS PLACED ON RECO RD). THIS FACTUAL MATRIX WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED CIT DR. 2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE IMPUGNED APP EAL PERTAINS TO SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) READ WITH SECTION 1 58BC OF THE 3 ACT. THE LEARNED APPELLATE COMMISSIONER VIDE ORDER DATE 26.9.2003 QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT BY HOLDING THAT TH E NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED BEYOND LIMITATION. THE TRIBU NAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 13.10.2006 HELD THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS DIRECTORY IN SEARCH CASES, THEREFORE, AS SESSMENT U/S 158BC WAS NOT VOID, CONSEQUENTLY THE MATTER WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PASSED THE ORD ER ON MERIT WHICH IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE BY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION IN ACIT V. HOTEL BLUE MOON (2010) 3 SCC 259 (SC) AN D VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L. THE CONCLUDING PART OF THE ORDER AS CONTAINED IN PARA 9 OF THE ORDER (MAIT NO. 54/2007) DATED 8.11.2010 IS REPRODUCED HE REUNDER :- 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL DATED 13.10.2006 CANNOT SUSTAIN. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL SUCCEEDS AND IS HEREBY ALLOWED . 4 THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE. HOWEVER, THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. SINCE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE HONBLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT BY REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, BOTH THESE APPEALS BEFORE US HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOU S. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AT THE CO NCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 28TH DECEMBER, 2010. (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28 TH DECEMBER, 2010 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, G UARD FILE DN/-