SMT. RAMA DEVI PARWAL, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITSSA 9/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2610 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KALIKA SINGHCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYA NARAYAN PARWAL
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF;D LN L; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITSSA NO. 09/JP/2011 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : (BLOCK PERIOD 1988-89 TO 1998-99) RAMA DEVI PARWAL, H-3, TODARMAL MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. R-721 VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITSSA NO. 07/JP/2011 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : (BLOCK PERIOD 1988-89 TO 1998-99) A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. RAMA DEVI PARWAL, H-3, TODARMAL MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. R-721 VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SATYA NARAYAN PARWAL JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI KALIKA SINGH (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05/10/2016. MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/10/2016. ITSSA NO. 09 & 07 /JP/2011 RAMA DEVI PARWAL VS ACIT 2 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: LALIET KUMAR, J.M. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS, ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ANO THER BY THE REVENUE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 31/3/2011 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1988-89 TO 1998-99, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE HAVE RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WENT WRONG IN HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 15BBD BY JT COMMISSIONER (ASSIT) WAS VALID WHEREAS THE JT COMMISSIONER NEVER HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WENT WRONG IN HOLDING THAT THE SERVICE OF NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE IS A RECOGNIZED MODE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE BUT HAS NOT DECIDED ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF SERVICE. 3. THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING NOT ICE U/S 158 BD IS BAD IN LAW AND ILLEGAL. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WENT WRONG IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO LACK OF OPPORTUNITY. GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL:- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-1, JAIPUR IS JUSTIFIE D IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 798744/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. ITSSA NO. 09 & 07 /JP/2011 RAMA DEVI PARWAL VS ACIT 3 FIRSTLY WE WILL TAKE REVENUES APPEAL:- 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE DE MAND/ TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUE IN QUESTION IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 7,24, 270/-. UNDER THE POWERS VESTED BY SEC. 268A(1) OF THE I T ACT, CBDT HA S RECENTLY ISSUED CIRCULARNO.21 OF 2015 DATED 10.12.2015(F NO. 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ(PT) INSTRUCTING THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE ITAT WHERE THE DEMAND/TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED LESS THAN RS. 10 LACS. THE CIRCULAR IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED TO BE APPLICABLE FOR ALL PENDING APPEALS. 3. SUBJECT TO SOME EXCEPTIONS, IT IS FURTHER DIREC TED BY CBDT THAT ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS PENDING BEFORE ITAT WHE RE THE DEMAND/TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN 10 LACS SHOULD BE EI THER WITHDRAWN OR NOT PRESSED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES. 4. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT COVERED BY ANY EXCEPTIO NS MENTIONED IN THE SAID CBDT CIRCULAR. SINCE THE TAX DEMAND IN D ISPUTE IN THIS DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS BELOW THE LIMIT SET OUT BY CB DT FOR THE APPEAL ITSSA NO. 09 & 07 /JP/2011 RAMA DEVI PARWAL VS ACIT 4 THE SAME IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF FORE GOINGS. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSE D/WITHDRAWN. 5. NOW WE TAKE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. SINCE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED ON AC COUNT OF BELOW TAX EFFECT, THEREFORE, THE POINTS RAISED IN THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE JOINT COMMISSIO NER AND THE LIMITATION HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC AND WILL NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE ADJUDICATION BEFORE US. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE AS WELL AS THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/10/2016. SD/- SD/- HKKXPAN YFYR DQEKJ (BHAGCHAND) (LALIET KUMAR) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 24 TH OCTOBER, 2016 RANJAN* VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SMT. RAMA DEVI PARWAL, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. ITSSA NO. 09 & 07 /JP/2011 RAMA DEVI PARWAL VS ACIT 5 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 (ITSSA NO. 09 & 07/JP/2011) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR