ITO, CHENNAI V. Sowcar Janaki, CHENNAI

MA 29/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2480 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMESH
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ' $ % , & ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NOS.28 & 29/MDS/2014 (IN ITA NOS. 616 & 617/MDS/2012) ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 & 2005-06) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, MEDIA WARD-III, 315, NEW BLOCK, 121, M.G.ROAD, CHENNAI-34. VS SMT. SOWCAR JANAKI A3, SOWCAR GARDEN APARTMENTS, 29, CENTAPAH II LANE, CENOTAPH ROAD, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI-600 018. PAN:AQMPS2940M (APPLICANT ) ( /RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : MR. S.DAS GUPTA, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR. S.RAMESH, C.A. / DATE OF HEARING : 25 TH JULY, 2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 TH OCTOBER, 2014 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD , JM: THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE REQUESTING THIS TRIBUNAL TO RECALL THE ORD ER DATED 29.8.2013 STATING THAT FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT DATED 31.12.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 004-05 AND 2005-06 ARE TIME BARRED IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT . 2 M.P. NOS.28 & 29/MDS/2014 2. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT THIS TR IBUNAL IN PARA 24 HAS WRONGLY MENTIONED THAT 18.03.2009 IS THE DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AS AGAINST 2 8.5.2009 WHICH IS THE ACTUAL DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. THE REFORE, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT THE TRIBUN ALS FINDING THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT DATED 31.12.2010 W AS SERVED ON 18.3.2009 AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENTS M ADE PURSUANT TO THE SAID NOTICE ARE TIME BARRED IS FACT UALLY INCORRECT AND IT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE NOW FILES A COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP IN PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND SUBMITS THAT NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 WERE SERVE D ON MRS. VAISHNAVI, WHO IS THE GRAND-DAUGHTER OF THE A SSESSEE ON 28.5.2009 AND THE REASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED O N 31.12.2010 WHICH ARE WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END O F THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148 W ERE SERVED AND THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT TIME BARRED. 3 M.P. NOS.28 & 29/MDS/2014 3. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT REVENUE HA S NOT PRODUCED ANY PROOF OF SERVICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMEN T TO SAY THAT NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 18.3.200 9 FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS IN FACT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 28.5.2009 AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF AP PEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT NOW THE REVENUE FILED MISCELLANEOUS PE TITIONS CONTENDING THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 18.3 .2009 WAS SERVED ON 28.5.2009, THEREFORE ASSESSMENTS MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE NO TICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS SERVED AND THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT T IME BARRED. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT EVEN THIS NOT ICE WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN SERVED ON MRS. VAISHNAVI ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE NOTICE WAS SAID TO HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE GRAND-DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE HELD AS A VALID SERVICE EVEN ASSUMING THAT NOTIC E WAS SERVED ON 28.5.2009 BUT NOT ON 18.3.2009, THEREFORE THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN HOLDING THAT ASSES SMENT WAS TIME BARRED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. 4 M.P. NOS.28 & 29/MDS/2014 4. HEARD BOTH SIDES. THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP WHIC H IS NOW PLACED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT NO TICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 18.3.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 WAS SERVED ON 28.5.2009 ON THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PLACED BEFORE US DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE APPEALS WERE HEARD BY THIS BEN CH ON 26.8.2013. THIS TRIBUNAL, AFTER EXAMINING THE ORIGI NAL NOTICE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP FILE D BY THE REVENUE SUGGESTING THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED ON 28.5.2009 ON THE ASSESSEE , CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 18.3.2009 ITSE LF ON RELYING ON THE NOTINGS ON THE ORIGINAL NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 148. THEREFORE SINCE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148 WER E SERVED ON 18.03.2009 AND THE REASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 1 43(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 WERE COMPLETED FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 ON 31.12.2010, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THESE ASSESSMENTS WERE TIME BARR ED AS THESE ASSESSMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BEFORE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YE AR IN WHICH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS SERVED. THESE CONCLUSI ONS WERE ARRIVED AT BY THIS TRIBUNAL BASED ON THE STATE MENTS OF 5 M.P. NOS.28 & 29/MDS/2014 BOTH THE PARTIES AND RECORDS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MISTA KE APPARENT ON RECORD IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT ASSESSMENTS WERE TIME BARRED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED B Y THIS TRIBUNAL IS NOT SUFFERED WITH ERROR OR MISTAKE APPA RENT FROM RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS BOTH THE MISCELLANEO US PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 1 7 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. ) ( / 12 ) ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) 4 /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1 4/ JUDICIAL MEMBER 1 /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, 17 TH OCTOBER, 2014 SOMU 9: <: /COPY TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. = () /CIT(A) 4. = /CIT 5. : ? /DR 6. /GF .