R.Swarna, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

MA 156/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2606 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN; S SRIDHAR S
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NOS. 154, 155 & 156/MDS/2014 (IN ITA NOS. 1750, 1751 & 1752/MDS/2011) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 SMT. R. SWARNA, NO.26, APPAKANNU STREET, LLOYDS ROAD, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI [PAN: ANIPS 3560 L] VS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI N.DEVANATHAN & SHRI S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATES RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 28-11-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-12-2014 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: THESE THREE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT SEEKING R ECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DT.16-05-2013 VIDE WHICH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED. THE ASSESS EE HAD FILED APPEALS FOR THE AYS.2003-04, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 IM PUGNING THE COMMON ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), CHENNAI DT.30-08-2011 CONFIRMING M.P. NOS. 154, 155 & 156/MDS/2014 :- 2 -: THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LD.COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DT.16-05-2013 HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER GROU ND NOS.2, 3 & 4 RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR REPRESENTING THE DE PARTMENT VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS MEN TIONED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS WERE NEITHE R RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS OF THE APPEALS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SI DES. THE ASSESSEE IN HER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.154/2014 RELEVANT TO THE AY.2003-04 HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 14 G ROUNDS IN APPEAL. OUT OF THESE 14 GROUNDS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED GROUND NOS.2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12 & 13. HOWEVER, O N PERUSAL OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE AY.2003-04, WE FIND THAT ONLY 9 GROUNDS WERE RAISED. THE LD.COUNSELS FOR THE ASSESSEE CONF INED THEIR SUBMISSIONS TO GROUND NOS. 2, 3 & 4 ONLY FOR ALL TH E THREE AYS. THE GROUNDS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS WHICH ARE ALLEGEDLY NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE RE PRODUCED AS UNDER: M.P. NOS. 154, 155 & 156/MDS/2014 :- 3 -: G.NO. GROUNDS FINDINGS OF THE ITAT 2. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASST ORDERS PASSED IN TERMS OF SECTION 153C / R.W.153C WITHOUT ADDUCING JUSTIFIABLE REASONS. CLEAR OMISSION TO CONSIDER 3. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSTS FRAME WERE INVALID PASSED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. CLEAR OMISSION TO CONSIDER 4. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DECISION OF THE SC REPORTED IN 289 ITR 341 WAS TOTALLY OVERLOOKED WHILE REJECTING THE GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENTS IN VIEW OF NON RECORDING OF SATISFACTION ON THE PART OF AO TO ASSUME JURISDICTION. CLEAR OMISSION TO CONSIDER HOWEVER, THE ACTUAL GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN A LL THE THREE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER: 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE P ENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF ` 2,77,173/- FOR AY.2003-04 ON THE GROUND THAT THERE HAS BEEN CONCEALMENT, FILLING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND CLAIMS MADE W HICH WERE FOUND TO BE FALSE OR WERE FOUND TO BE NOT SUSTAINABLE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT E XPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE ADDITION OF INCOME MADE IN THE ASSESS MENT WERE NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED BUT THAT THEY WERE BRUSHED ASIDE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE DISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS IN WHICH ADDITIONS OF ` 5,80,000/- AND 2,20,000/- WERE MADE BY THE DEEMING PROVISION U/S.68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACT T HAT THE APPELLANT WAS ONLY A HOUSEWIFE COMING FROM AND LIVING IN TRADITIONAL A FFLUENT FAMILY AND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OR INFERENCE TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAD EARNED THE TAXABLE INCOME IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR. M.P. NOS. 154, 155 & 156/MDS/2014 :- 4 -: WE OBSERVE THAT THE GROUNDS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE NOT IN CONGRUENCE WITH THE GROUNDS TA KEN IN APPEALS FOR THE THREE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE GROUNDS M ENTIONED IN MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS WERE NEVER RAISED BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO MISLEAD THE TRIB UNAL BY RAISING FRIVOLOUS GROUNDS AND IS SEEKING REVISION OF THE OR DER IN THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER. A PERUSAL OF RECORDS S HOWS THAT THE ACT AND CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGHOUT HAS BEEN DUBIOUS . THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSING COST. HOWEVER, WE RESTRAIN OURSE LVES FROM IMPOSING ANY COST. THE LD.COUNSELS FOR THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW ANY MISTAKE WHAT-SO-EVER IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL D T.16-05-2013 THAT CALLS FOR RECTIFICATION. THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIO NS ARE DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 1 ST DECEMBER, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 ST DECEMBER, 2014 TNMM COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR