DCIT, Sultanpur V. Shri Udai Pratap Singh (Ind), Pratapgarh

MA 14/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7868 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G N SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: PUJA RAJ
• Keywords: Block assessment

Judgement Text

[ 1 ] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S. K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. R. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 14 /LKW/11 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 314 /LKW/10) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003 - 2004 DY. C.I.T., VS. SHRI UDAI PRATAP SINGH (IND.) CIRCLE - SULTANPUR. S/O LATE TRILOCHAN PRATAP SINGH BHADRI, PRATAPGARH. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI G. N. SRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PUJA RAJ, D. R. DATE OF HEARING :2 4 / 02 /201 2 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 5 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 2 ORDER PER B. R. JAIN: THIS APPLICATION BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/11/2010 IN I.T.A. NO.314/LKW/10 HAS BEEN MADE ON 18/03/2011 REQUIRING APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO RECALL ITS ORDER AND RECONSIDER THE WHOLE ISSUE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WORKED INTEREST INCOME OF ` 24,39,898/ - ON INVESTMENTS OF ` 6,72,94,120/ - WHICH, INTER ALIA, INCLUDED DEPOSITS/INVESTMENTS WITH VARIOUS BANKS AND INSTITUTIONS IN ASSESSEES OWN NAME AS INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS [ 2 ] INVESTMENT S HELD IN THE NAME OF SMT. MANJULE RAJE, HIS WIFE, SMT. BHANVI KUMARI (DAUGHTER - IN - LAW) AND ONE SHRI LOKESH BHAKT VATSAL WHO IS NAME LENDER AND IN WHOSE NAMES FDRS AND RDS WERE FOUND INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE INVESTMENTS AND INCOME THE REON WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADDITION AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01/04/96 TO 16/12/2002 AND ON THAT BASIS THE CONTINUING FDR IN THE NAME OF ALL SUCH PERSONS OR THE REINVESTMENT THEREOF AFTER MATURITY IN THEIR NAME OR IN SO ME OTHER NAMES WERE BROUGHT TO TAX AS ASSESSEES INCOME AS THE INVESTMENTS WERE FOUND MADE AND BELONGING TO THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, HAD SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND REMITTED THE MATTER BAC K TO HIM FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION WHEREAS IN THE CASES OF THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE PERIOD 17/12/2002 TO 31/03/2003 WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF SEARCH AND WAS A PERIOD OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT , THE LEARNED CIT(A) SCALE D DOWN THE INTEREST INCOME TO ` 6,09, 364/ - FOR HIS OWN INVESTMENTS AS AGAINST ` 24,39,898/ - WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SAME INVESTMENTS FOR WHICH MATTER STOOD SET ASIDE AND REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE REMAND REPORT HIGHLIGHTING THE SAID INVESTMENT ALONG WIT H INTEREST FOR BLOCK PERIOD AS WELL AS FOR REGULAR PERIOD WAS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT IN THE REMAND REPORTS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND HAS BEEN SUMMARIZED IN THE APPLICATION ALSO AS UNDER: [ 3 ] (A) NUCB, SADAR BRANCH, PRATAPGARH S.NO. F.Y. AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT INTEREST ACCRUED ON INVESTMENT AND INCLUDED IN THE BLOCK PERIOD ASSESSMENT FO R THE PERIOD 01/04/2002 TO 16/1 2/2002 INTEREST ACCRUED FROM 17/12/2002 TO 31/03/2003 AND INCLUDED IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT OF A.Y. 2003 - 04 1. 96 - 97 1763000 235306 95027 2. 99 - 00 70000 7184 2901 3. 00 - 01 41255140 3788511 1529976 4. 01 - 02 15991701 1306050 527443 5. 02 - 03 234920 12002 7434 TOTAL 2162781 (B) NUCB, CHILBILA BRANCH, PRATAPGARH S.NO. F.Y. AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT INTEREST ACCRUED ON INVESTMENT AND INCLUDED IN THE BLOCK PERIOD ASSESSMENT FOR THE PERIOD 01/04/2002 TO 16/1 2/2002 INTEREST ACCRUED FROM 17/1 2/2002 TO 31/03/2003 AND INCLUDED IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT OF A.Y. 2003 - 04 1. 96 - 97 70000 9916 4005 2. 97 - 98 1265000 150889 60936 3. 00 - 01 250000 23939 9668 4. 01 - 02 289659 23107 9332 5. 02 - 03 100000 7052 3164 TOTAL 87105 [ 4 ] (C) NUCB, KUNDA BRANCH, PRATAPGARH S.NO. F.Y, AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT INTEREST ACCRUED ON INVESTMENT AND INCLUDED IN THE BLOCK PERIOD ASSESSMENT FOR THE PERIOD 01/04/2002 TO 16/1 2/2002 INTEREST ACCRUED FROM 17/1 2/2002 TO 31/03/2003 AN D I NCLUDED IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT OF A.Y. 2003 - 04 1. 02 - 03 5792000 240721 183281 (D) ZILA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED, SADAR BRANCH, PRATAPGARH F.Y. AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT INTEREST ACCRUED ON INVESTMENT AND INCLUDED IN THE BLOCK PERIOD ASSESSMENT FOR THE PERIOD 01/04/2002 TO 16/1 2/2002 INTEREST ACCRUED FROM JK7/1 2/2002 TO 31/03/2003 AND INCLUDED IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT OF A.Y. 2003 - 04 1. 02 - 03 212700 5892 6731 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) COMMITTED ERROR IN NOT CONSIDERING THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF OTHER PERSONS WHILE SCAL ING DOWN THE ADDITION TO ` 6,09,364/ - ON THE BASIS OF INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS OWN NAME. 3 . THE LEARNED D. R. CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: I . THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REDUCING THE ADDITION OF ` 24,39,898/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME TO ` 6,09,364/ - . II. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT INTEREST INCOME OF [ 5 ] ` 24,39,898/ - WAS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON INVESTMENT OF ` 67,294,120/ - AND WHILE ALLOWING RELIEF ON THIS POINT T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT. III. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A), WHILE REDUCING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ISSUE OF INVESTMENT OF ` 67,294,12 0/ - WAS INTER ALIA CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE PERIOD 01/04/1996 TO 16/12/2002 WHICH IS SUB - JUDICE IN THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW BENCH. IV. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO AMEND OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AN D ADD FURTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF NECESSARY. 3.1 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, DID NOT ANSWER GROUND NO. 2 RAISED IN APPEAL BEFORE IT AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BY CONFINING TO THE DECISION IN GROUND NO. 1 ONLY. THERE HAS THUS BEEN A M ISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS RECTIFIABLE U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT SO THAT THE ORDER PASSED ON 12/11/2010 IS RECALLED FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE S AFRESH. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND ASSESSEES COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H AS CONSIDERED ALL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER BEFORE IT AND IT IS THEREAFTER ONLY AND FINDING NO ERROR IN THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IT HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. IN THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION THE ONLY PRAYER OF REVENUE IS THA T THE HON'BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY RECALL THE ORDER DATED 12/11/2010 AND RECONSIDER THE WHOLE ISSUE. FRESH CONSIDERATION OF THE WHOLE ISSUE SHALL AMOUNT TO REVIEW WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF POWERS CONTAINED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH THE APPLIC ATION MADE BY REVENUE NEEDS TO BE REJECTED. [ 6 ] 5. WE HAVE HEARD PARTIES AND HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE MATERIAL AS WELL AS RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES. THE GROUND NO. (II) IN APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER: II. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT INTEREST INCOME OF ` 24,39,898/ - WAS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON INVESTMENT OF ` 67,294,120/ - AND WHILE ALLOWING RELIEF ON THIS POINT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSID ERED THIS ASPECT. 5.1 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE RENDERED ITS DECISION ON THE AFORESAID GROUND AND CONFINED ITSELF TO THE ASSESSMENT OF INTEREST INCOME OF ` 6,09,364/ - WHICH WAS RELATABLE TO THE INVESTMENT HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS OWN NAME. ON THE CONTRARY, THE REVENUES CASE WAS THAT THE INTEREST INCOME OF ` 24,39,898/ - , INTER ALIA, COVERS INVESTMENTS FROM WHICH INTEREST INCOME IS DERIVED IS HELD BY THE AS SESSEE IN HIS OWN NAME AS WELL AS IN THE NAME OF CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS NAMELY SMT. MANJULE RAJE, HIS WIFE, SMT. BHANVI KUMARI (DAUGHTER - IN - LAW) AND ONE SHRI LOKESH BHAKT VATSAL AND THESE INVESTMENTS BEING THAT OF RESPONDENT ASSESSEE, INCOME THEREFROM WAS A SUBJECT MATTER OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER AGAINST WHICH ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) STANDS SET ASIDE AND REMITTED BACK BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO HIM FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH. THIS BEING SO AND ASSESSEES GROUND NO. 2 HAVING NOT BEEN ANSWERED, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED A MISTAKE IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF REVENUE WITHOUT RENDERING ANY DECISION ON GROUND NO. 2 IN APPEAL BEFORE IT. [ 7 ] THE SAID MISTAKE IS, THEREFORE, RECTIFIABLE U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT AND ON THAT ASPECT ALONE ASSESSEES A PPLICATION IS PARTLY ALLOWED SO THAT THIS GROUND IS HEARD ON MERIT AND DECISION RENDERED THEREON. 5.2 IN SO FAR AS ASSESSEES PRAYER THAT THE WHOLE ORDER NEEDS TO BE RECALLED FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE SAME WILL AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF TRIBUNALS ORDER. SUCH A REQUEST BEING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF POWERS U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT , THE SAME STANDS REJECTED. 6. AS A RESULT, ASSESSEES APPLICATION IS PARTLY ALLOWED , SO THAT GROUND NO. 2 RAISED IN APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO.314/LKW/10, IS HEARD ON ITS MERITS IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2012 FOR WHICH REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO ISSUE A FORMAL NOTICE TO THE PARTIES. ( O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 5 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 2 ) SD/. SD/. ( S. K. YADAV ) ( B. R. JAIN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 0 5 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 2 *SINGH 2902 COPY FORWARDED TO THE: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR