Smt. Arpita Bansal V. The Presiding Officer, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench \\u2018A\", and others

ITA/346/2011

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Arpita Bansal, the appellant, who challenged the remanding of her case by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal back to the Assessing Officer. The original issue arose from a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued to the appellant for the assessment year 2003-04, alleging that she benefited from an accommodation entry of Rs. 2,50,000. The Assessing Officer initially made a best judgment assessment under section 144, which was annulled by the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal's decision to remand the case was contested by the appellant in the High Court, leading to the present appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796306 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Respondent
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIV KUMAR
• Keywords: Accommodation entry; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Legal Proceedings; Reassessment
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 271(1)(b); 260A; 151; 282

Judgement Text

" ITA No.346 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 346 of 2011 Date of decision: 31.01.2012 Smt.Arpita Bansal -----Appellant Vs. The Presiding Officer, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench ‘A’ and others ----Respondent CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) against the order dated 18.2.2011, Annexure A-3 passed in ITA No.2261/Del/2010 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), claiming following substantial questions of law:- “a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law to restore the case back to the Assessing Officer, respondent No.3? b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings returned by the Income Tax Appellate 1 ITA No.346 of 2011 Tribunal, respondent No.1 without taking into consideration the provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act that the very initiation of proceedings are bad in law and vitiated are sustainable in the eyes of law? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings returned by respondent No.1 without taking into consideration the fact that respondent No.3 has not challenged the findings of respondent No.2 on the issue of lack of invalid proceedings of re-assessment under Sections 147 to 151 before respondent No.1 are sustainable in the eyes of law? d) Whether the findings of respondent No.1 are perverse and against the relevant provisions of law? 2. Brief facts as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 24.3.2009 for the assessment year 2003-04 on the ground that the appellant is the beneficiary of the accommodation entry amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- obtained from Mr. Sushil Goel vide Bank instrument/cheque No.153687 dated 12.8.2002 drawn on Jai Laxmi Cooperative Bank of Fatehpuri, Delhi. Mr. Sushil Goel has been doing the business of providing accommodation entries in a big way after obtaining equivalent cash plus commission on it. The alleged accommodation entry of Rs.2,50,000/- was credited in the assessee’s bank account with Punjab and Sindh Bank, Sector 16, Ajronda, Faridabad. It was further alleged that the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- is the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources which she routed through the conduit of the above person. The appellant has not filed the return of income for the assessment year 2003-04. Respondent No.3 vide assessment 2 ITA No.346 of 2011 order dated 14.12.2009 made the assessment under section 144 of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Act were ordered to be initiated separately. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Faridabad [In short, “the CIT(A)”] who vide order dated 25.3.2010, Annexure P.2 allowed the appeal and annulled the assessment. The department filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 18.2.2011, Annexure P.3, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. Hence this appeal by the assessee. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee submitted that the Tribunal was in error in remanding the case to the Assessing Officer for adjudication. According to the learned counsel, the revenue had failed to adhere to the provisions of Section 282 of the Act and, therefore, the proceedings were void ab initio and legally unsustainable. In such circumstances, the remanding of the case was futile exercise and would cause unnecessary harassment to the appellant. 4. After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 5. The Tribunal while remanding the case had noticed as under:- “We also find no such objection was raised by the assessee before the Assessing Officer although the husband of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings but no compliance was made by him and the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order under section 144. Under this factual position, we feel that it will be fit and proper that this matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The Assessee is at liberty to raise objections before the Assessing Officer regarding validity of reassessment proceedings and the 3 ITA No.346 of 2011 Assessing Officer should pass necessary order as per law against those objections if raised by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and thereafter, the Assessing Officer should proceed to frame the assessment de novo if no objection is raised by the assessee before him regarding validity of re-assessment proceedings or if such objections are rejected by him.” 6. The Tribunal vide order dated 18.2.2011 has remanded the matter to the assessing officer to re-adjudicate it afresh including the issue of validity of reassessment proceedings. The said course has been adopted by the Tribunal as the best judgment assessment was framed by the assessing officer under Section 144 of the Act and there was no objection before the assessing officer as has been canvassed by the assessee. The matter has only been remanded for fresh adjudication and the assessee has been granted liberty to raise all the pleas before the assessing authority. In such circumstances, no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the appellant. 7. In view of the above, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge January 31, 2012 (M.M.Kumar) ‘gs’ Judge 4 "