Income Tax Officer-II, Faizabad V. Shri Chunnilal Prajapati, Faizabad

MA 22/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1476 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NOS.22 TO 25 /LKW/20 12 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NOS.290 TO 293/LKW/2010) A.YRS.:1999 - 2000 & 2001 - 02 TO 2003 - 04 INCOME TAX OFFICER - II, FAIZABAD. VS. SHRI CHUNNILAL PRAJAPATI, 18, CIVIL LINES, FAIZABAD. (A PPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. RESPONDENT BY NONE (APPLICATION) DATE OF HEARING 27/12/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 8 /01/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. ALL THESE FOUR MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE POINTING OUT CERTAIN ALLEGED APPARENT MISTAKE S IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 28/02/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999 - 2000, 2001 - 2002, 2002 - 2003 AND 2003 - 2004. 2. HEARING OF THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS WAS FIXED ON 27/12/2013 BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS DATE OF HEARING. HOWEVER, AN AP PLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED BY SHRI S. P. MISHRA, ADVOCATE, LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE BUT NONE WAS PRESENT IN THE COURT TO PURSUE THIS ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION. WE ALSO FIND THAT NO REASONABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION AND IT IS STATED THAT THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO ATTEND AND PLEAD ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE HE [ 2 ] IS GOING OUT OF STATION FOR AN URGENT PIECE OF PERSONAL WORK WITHOUT POINTING OUT THE NATURE OF SUCH PERSONAL WORK. HENCE, THIS REQUEST FO R ADJOURNMENT IS REJECTED AND THE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE BEING HEARD EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. LEARNED D.R. REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE MISC. APPLICATIONS. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE MISC. APPLICATION S AND THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS. IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 16 THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS INITIATED THE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT REFERRING TO ANY MATERIAL WHICH COULD JUSTIFY HIS CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID ACTION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THIS FINDING IS ALSO GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAME PARA THAT THE SAID ACTION APPEARS TO BE ON SUSPICION AND FOR MAKING ROVING ENQUIRIES. WE ALSO FIND THAT IN PARA 12 OF THE ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS REPRODUCED THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING AND THEREAFTER I N PARA 13 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, THIS IS OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACTED UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING AND IN THE SAID INFORMATION , IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED A SU M OF RS.5,38,860/ - IN PURCHASE OF LAND SITUATED IN 150, RAFI AHMAD KIDWAI NAGAR SCHEME (ELDECO GREEN), GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW BUT IT WAS NOT STATED THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OR OUT OF INCOME WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSME NT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED THIS ALSO IN THE SAME PARA THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT MENTIONED IN THE REASONS RECORDED THAT HE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE SAID SUM OF RS.5,38,860/ - ESCAPED INCOME - TAX ASSESSMENT. HENCE, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL DECIS ION IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER IS ON [ 3 ] THE BASIS OF THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND THERE IS NO MISTAKE, AS POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE IN THE MISC. APPLICATIONS AND IN THE MISC. APPLICATIONS , THE REVENUE HAS MERELY ALLEGED APPARENT MISTAKE ON THE BASIS OF SOME JUDGMENT S AND ON DISTINGUISHING OF SOME JUDGMENT S . IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS NOTED ABOVE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER IS BASED, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE THE REVENUE COULD NOT ESTABL ISH ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE MISC. APPLICATIONS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 2 8 / 01/2014 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE O RDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A ) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR