Sh. Jagmohan Singh, Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

MA 21/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8197 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMJIT KAUR
• Section: 271(1)(c); 254(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ “ए”, च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH ीमती दवा संह, या"यक सद#य एवं, एवं ीमती अ नप ू णा& ग ु (ता, लेखा सद#य BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM M.A. Nos. 20 & 21/CHD/2019 in ITA Nos. 375/CHD/2016 & ITA 108/CHD/2012 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2008-09 Shri Jagmohan Singh, House No. 2409, Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana. बनाम VS The DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: AEHPS2203N अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ramjit Kaur, Sr. DR स ु नवाई क तार%ख/Date of Hearing : 16.11.2021 उदघोषणा क तार%ख/ Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2021 Hearing conducted via Webex आदेश/ORDER PER DIVA SINGH By the present Miscellaneous Applications dated 12.12.2018 filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act in ITA 375/CHD/2016 and ITA 108/CHD/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 and 2008-09 respectively, the assessee prays for recall of the consolidated order dated 20.10.2018 pertaining to only the penalty appeal of 2009-10 assessment year namely ITA 375/CHD/2016. 2 . Inviting attention to the consolidated order passed in the appeals, the ld. AR relying upon the application filed submitted that ITA 108/CHD/2012 was a quantum appeal pertaining to 2008- 09 assessment year and ITA 375/CHD/2016 was an appeal MA 20 & 21 /CHD/2019 In ITA 375/CHD/2016 & ITA 108/CHD/2012 Page 2 of 5 pertaining to 2009-10 assessment year. In the common order passed by the ITAT in the two appeals, a mistake has occurred wherein in ITA 375/CHD/2016 ( 1009-10 assessment year) was treated by mistake as a penalty appeal pertaining to the quantum appeal first decided which infact was of 2008-09 assessment year and hence, not of the same assessment year. Referring to the record, it was submitted that ITA 375/CHD/2016 was an appeal where the correctness of the order of the CIT(A)-5 Ludhiana dated 16.02.2016 wherein the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer stood upheld in 2009-10 assessment year. Referring to the consolidated order, it was submitted that first the quantum appeal for 2008-09 assessment year was taken up for adjudication in the order. The said appeal was of the Revenue and therein ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 raised were dismissed and ground No. 4 was restored back with certain directions. In para 25 in ITA 375/CHD/2016 taking note of this fact, the mistake has occurred as omitting the fact that this appeal pertained to 2009-10 assessment year, it was dismissed on the reasoning that the quantum additions have been deleted, the issues become infructuous. Pointing out from the record, it was submitted that on account of this mistake ITA 375/CHD/2016 was wrongly dismissed as infructuous. This order, it was his prayer, may be recalled and fixed for hearing. The departmental reply on these issues had been filed by Ms. Priyanka Dhar on 10.11.2021 and the MA 20 & 21 /CHD/2019 In ITA 375/CHD/2016 & ITA 108/CHD/2012 Page 3 of 5 ld. AR submitted that the factual position was not disputed by the Revenue. 3. The ld. Sr.DR does not dispute the facts argued. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On a reading of the record it is seen that admittedly qua the facts relatable to ITA 108/CHD/2012 the position was captured in para 2 of the impugned order in the following manner : 2. Firstly we shall deal with the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 108/Chd/2012 for A.Y. 2008-09, wherein Revenue has raised the following grounds: .............................” 4 . 1 I t i s se e n t ha t i n p a r a 2 5 , t he f a ct t h a t I TA 3 7 5 / C H D / 2 0 1 6 r e l a t e d t o a d i ff e r e n t a s se s s me nt y e a r wa s a l so c o rr e c t l y ca p t ur e d . 4 . 2 I t i s se e n t h a t a mi s t a k e h a s o cc u rr e d i n p a r a 26 w he re it h a s be e n c o n c l u de d t h a t t he q u a n t u m ad d it i o ns st a n d de l e t e d / r e st o r e d . Fo r r e a d y r e fe re nce , t h e se spe c if ic p a r a s ar e re p r o d u ce d f ro m t he i m p ug ne d o r d e r : “25. Now we shall deal with the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No. 375/CHD/2016 for the A.Y. 2009-10 wherein assessee has raised the following grounds : 1. That the impugned order has been passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without proper application of mind, as such it is not sustainable in law and facts of the case. MA 20 & 21 /CHD/2019 In ITA 375/CHD/2016 & ITA 108/CHD/2012 Page 4 of 5 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing appellant's appeal and holding that the Penalty imposed U/S 271 ( I ) (c) of the IT. Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer in this case is held to be justified. The Penalty levied amounting to Rs. 13,13,910/- confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is misplaced, untenable and contrary to law. 3. That the Penalty levied is based on misplaced and untenable notice. Provisions of Section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been misconstrued and misapplied in the Appellant's case. 26. Since the quantum additions have been deleted / restored the same is hereby dismissed as in fructuous at this juncture. 27. As a result Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Assessee is dismissed.” (emphasis supplied) 5 . A c co rd i n gl y, i n t h e f a c e o f t h e a p p a r e n t mi st a k e a va i la b le o n t h e f a ce o f t h e r e co r d i t se l f , in o r de r t o a d d r es s t he m i s t a ke o c cu r r in g i n p a r a 26 a n d 27 , t he o rd e r i s r e c a l l e d t o t h is e x t e nt . 6 . T h e a p p e a l o f t h e a s s e s s e e i n I T A 3 7 5 / C H D / 2 0 1 6 i s d i r e c t e d t o b e l i s t e d f o r f r e s h h e a r i n g o n 2 1 . 1 2 . 2 02 1 . S i n c e t h e d a t e o f f i x a t i o n w a s n o t p r o n o u n c e d i n t he O p e n C o u r t , t h e R e g i s t r y i s d i r e c t e d t o i s s u e n o t i c e t o t h i s e f f e c t . 7 . A c co rd i n gl y, t h e c o n s o li d at e d o r d e r d a t e d 2 9 .1 0 .20 1 8 i n I TA 3 7 5 / C H D / 20 1 6 a n d I TA 1 0 8 / C H D / 2 0 1 2 wh e r e i n M .A . 2 0 & 2 1 / C HD / 2 0 1 9 ha ve b e e n ra i se d , t h e p r a ye r o f t he a sse s se e i n M. A . 2 0 / C H D / 2 0 1 9 i s a l l o w e d a n d M . A . 2 1 / C H D / 2 0 1 9 req u ir e s MA 20 & 21 /CHD/2019 In ITA 375/CHD/2016 & ITA 108/CHD/2012 Page 5 of 5 n o m o di fi ca t i o n a n d t h u s i s d i s mi s se d . Th i s o r d e r wa s p r o n o u nce d d u r i n g t h e p r o ce e d in g s v i a W e b e x o n t he d a t e o f he a r in g i t se l f e x ce p t t h e d a t e o f f re s h f i x at io n o f t he Ap pe al f o r w h i c h pu rp o se s , a p p r o p r i a t e i ns t r u ct io ns h a ve b e e n g iv e n t o t he R e gi st r y a lr e a d y. 8 . I n t he r e su l t , M. A . 20 / C HD / 20 1 9 i s a l lo w e d a n d M. A. 2 1 / C HD / 2 0 1 9 is di s m is se d . Order pronounced on 18 th November, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- ( अ नप ू णा& ग ु (ता ) ( दवा संह ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SINGH) लेखा सद#य/ Accountant Member या"यक सद#य/ Judicial Member “प ू नम” आदेश क त-ल.प अ/े.षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant – 2. यथ / The Respondent -3.आयकर आय ु 0त/ CIT आयकर आय ु 0त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 4..वभागीय त न5ध, आयकर अपील%य 5.आ5धकरण, च8डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6.गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar