Niraj Kumar Jain, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

MA 284/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5658 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOPI KRISHNA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SUNIL KUMAR JAIN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !' , # $ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %% / M.P. NO.284/MDS/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.2820/MDS/2016) & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI NIRAJ KUMAR JAIN, 421, MINT STREET, CHENNAI - 600 079. PAN : AAAPJ 7518 E V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 5(2), CHENNAI - 600 006. ()*& /PETITIONER) ()+*,/ RESPONDENT) )*& . / /PETITIONER BY : SHRI S. SUNIL KUMAR JAIN, FC A )+*, . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GOPI KRISHNA, JCIT 0 . 1# / DATE OF HEARING : 05.01.2018 2!' . 1# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.01.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') IS IN A ROUTINE MANNER WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE LIMB UNDER WHICH HE PROPOSES TO LEVY PENALTY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SPECIFY WHETHER HE 2 M.P. NO.284/MDS/17 PROPOSES TO LEVY PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THIS BEING THE LEGAL ISSUE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, IT MAY BE RAIS ED AT ANY POINT OF TIME. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH WHETHER THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM 36? THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE VERY FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSU E WAS NOT RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, IT WAS ARGUED. 2. WE HEARD SHRI GOPI KRISHNA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. FOR RAISING AN ISSUE FOR ADJU DICATION, IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THE SAME IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE VERY OBJECT OF RAISING A GROUND IN A J UDICIAL FORUM IS TO GIVE A FAIR AND JUST OPPORTUNITY TO THE OPPOSITE PA RTY TO DEFEND THEIR CASE. IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY, GROUND WITH REGARD TO DEFECT IN THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT RAIS ED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT WAS ARGUED D URING THE COURSE OF HEARING. THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE ASSES SEE ARGUED ORALLY DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. SINCE THE OTHER PART Y SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO SURPRISE BY RAISING A NEW POINT AT THE T IME OF ARGUMENT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE RAISED IN A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION. IN OTHER WORDS , IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THE GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL ITSELF. IF AT ALL ANY 3 M.P. NO.284/MDS/17 GROUND WAS OMITTED, THE SAME CANNOT BE RAISED IN TH E MISCELLANEOUS PETITION. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ERR OR MUCH LESS PRIMA FACIE ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED COURT ON 12 TH JANUARY, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 12 TH JANUARY, 2018. KRI. . )15% 6%'1 /COPY TO: 1. )*& / PETITIONER 2. )+*, /RESPONDENT 3. 0 71 () /CIT(A) 4. 0 71 /CIT 5. %8 )1 /DR 6. 9& : /GF.