Shri Ashok Goyal, Bhopal V. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

MA 90/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6232 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K BORICHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S S DESHPANDE
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NOS,86 TO 92/IND/2016 ARISING OUT OF CO NOS.34 TO 40/IND/2013 APPELLANT BY SHRI S.S. DESHPANDE RESPONDENT BY SHRI V.K. BORICHA DATE OF HEARING 9.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15 .02.2018 ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM. THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS AT THE INSTANCE O F THE ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26.7.2013 IN CO NOS. 34 TO 40/IND/2013 PERTAINING TO THE A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2 009-10. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT AN APPARENT MISTAKE CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS THERE WAS NO FINDING ABOUT THE COMMON ISSUES RAISED IN THE CO GROUND NOS. 1, 2 AND 3. THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED THE FOLLOWING COMMON GRIEVANCE IN THESE GROUNDS :- ASHOK GOYAL BHOPAL VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) PAN NO.AFGPG3031D 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A WAS WITH VA LID JURISDICTION AND IS ACCORDINGLY NOT BAD IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY ALL PROCEEDINGS THEREAFTER ARE ALSO NOT ILLEGAL, IN VALID AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERR ED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED IS NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION A ND IS ACCORDINGLY VALID. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERR ED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A/153B AND IS ACCORDINGLY NOT ILLEGAL, INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE GROUNDS WERE TAKEN UP AND THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) RELATING TO EACH GROUND WERE MENTION ED. HOWEVER, AFTER REPRODUCING THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E CROSS OBJECTION AND ONLY DECIDED THE MATTER ON MERITS. FURTHER, THE TRI BUNAL DID NOT GIVE ANY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTI ON AND THESE GROUNDS REMAIN UNDECIDED. HE, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THESE GROUNDS MAY KINDLY BE DECIDED AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE AMEND ED ACCORDINGLY. 4. THE LEARNED D R DID NOT CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L THE APPEALS RELATING TO SEVEN YEARS HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THER E WERE CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THREE ISSUES CHA LLENGING THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), NAMELY (I) HOLDING THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT I S VALID; (II) HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED IS NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION; (III) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A/153B OF THE ACT. 6. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WE FIND THAT THESE THREE ISSUES RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION WERE TAK EN UP FOR ADJUDICATION IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A) DISMISSING THESE GROUNDS WERE REPRODUCED. AT THE END OF EACH GROUND THERE IS NO FINAL DECISION MENTIONED. HOWEVER, AT THE END OF THE ORD ER AT PAGE 126 IN PARA 173, THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE CROSS OBJECTION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSING T HE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AT THE END OF THE DISCUS SION FOR EACH GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION, AFTER PARA 4 AT PAGE 4, AFTER PARA 5 AT PAGE 6 AND AFTER PARA 7 AT PAGE 7, FOLLOWING SHOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIO NED TO COMPLETE ADJUDICATION OF THE GROUNDS :- 4A. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSING THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS VALID AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WITH VALID JURISDICTION. 5A. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WI TH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSING THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER WAS NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION. 7A. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WIT H THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSING THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A/154B OF THE ACT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15 FEBRUARY, 2018. SD SD (KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER FEBRUARY 15TH , 2018 COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR DN/- BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY/DDO, INDORE 1. DATE OF DICTATION : 8.2.2018 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER : 9.2.2018 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P .S: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISSTANT R EGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE OF THE ORDER. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: