Smt. Chetna Kukreja,, New Delhi v. ACIT, New Delhi

CO 212/DEL/2009 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 21220123 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AASPK2322D
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number CO 212/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Chetna Kukreja,, New Delhi
Respondent ACIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 09-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 09-12-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 08-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 08-12-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 22-07-2009
Judgment Text
I.T.A. NO.2141/DEL/2009 C.O. NO.212/DEL/2009 1/4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI BENCH B BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K. D. RANJAN ACCOUTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2141 /DEL/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) ACIT CIRCLE (23)1_ VS. SMT. CHETNA KUKREJA NEW DELHI C-8 EAST OF KAILASH LGF-II NEW DELHI C.O. NO.212/DEL/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) SMT. CHETNA KUKREJA VS. ACIT CIRCLE 23(1) C-8 EAST OF KAILASH II NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) PAN / GIR NO. AASPK2322D APPELLANT BY: SHRI AMRENDRA KUMAR SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ASHWANI T ANEJA/ DR. RAKESH GUPTA ADV. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER K. D. RANJAN AM: PER K. D. RANJAN AM: PER K. D. RANJAN AM: PER K. D. RANJAN AM: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS O BJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) XXIII NEW DELHI. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IN REVENUES APPEAL RELATES TO ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THE FACTS OF THE CASE STATED IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY ASSESSED AT DELHI WITH ACIT CIRCLE 23(1). THE I.T.O. WARD 1(5) FARI DABAD ON RECEIPT OF CERTAIN INFORMATION REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE TRAN SFERRED TO ACIT CIRCLE 23(1) NEW DELHI WHO VESTED WITH THE JURISDI CTION OF THE I.T.A. NO.2141/DEL/2009 C.O. NO.212/DEL/2009 2/4 ASSESSEE. EVENTUALLY THE PROCEEDINGS CULMINATED I NTO THE ORDER U/S 143(3)/147 ON 29.12.2008. 3. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE TOOK AS MANY AS 11 GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ONE OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO NON- SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FILING RETURNS OF INCOME IN NEW DE LHI FOR THE LAST MORE THAN EIGHT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER FILE D RETURN OF HER INCOME AT FARIDABAD. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT AWARE OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AT FARIDABAD. IT WAS ALSO PO INTED OUT THAT THE A.O. AGAIN SERVED THE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 20.03.20 08 BY AFFIXTURE ACT THE SAME ADDRESS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSES SED AT NEW DELHI THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O. AT FARIDABAD W AS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSMENT FR AMED IN PURSUANCE TO THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE WAS BAD IN LA W. LD. CIT(A) EXAMINED THE MATER IN DETAIL. LD. CIT(A) AFTER DE TAILED DISCUSSION HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. WAS BAD IN L AW. WHILE PASSING SUCH ORDER HE OBSERVED AS UNDER: 12. IN THE CASE IN HAND THE ASSESSEE IS BETTER PLA CED. THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY BEING ASSESSED TO TAX IN DELHI A CONTENTION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTE D BY LD. A.O. ON 11.8.2008 THE ASSESSEE ALSO BROUGHT T HIS TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE I.T.O. WARD 1(5) FARIDABAD . FOR SOME REASON THE FILE EVENTUALLY GOT TRANSFERRE D TO THE ACIT DELHI WHO WAS VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTI ON ONLY ON 12.12.2008. PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECO RDS DOES NOT REVEAL THAT THE A.O. IN DELHI RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION FOR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT ISSUE A FRESH NOTICE U/S 148 BEFORE FRAMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AS SUCH THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION IN ANJALI DUA CASE (SUPRA) WOULD SQUARELY APPLY TO THE CASE IN HAND. ANOTHER DECISI ON RENDERED ON SIMILAR LINES BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IS IN THE CASE OF ANIL KHOSAL IN I.T.A. NO. 8 38/2008 IS UNTENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE ASSESSEE SUCC EEDS IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.3 4 & 5. 4. BEFORE US THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE A.O. HAVING JURISDICT ION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THE REASONS WERE RECORDED. THE NOTICE U/S 148 I.T.A. NO.2141/DEL/2009 C.O. NO.212/DEL/2009 3/4 WAS ISSUED BY THE A.O. WARD 1(5) FARIDABAD AND THE REAFTER THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE A.O. THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY THE A.O. AT FARIDABAD HAVING NO JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE IS BAD IN LAW. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF D ELHI IN THE CASE OF ANJIL KHOSLA IN I.T.A. NO. 838/2008 DATED 01.09.200 8 CIT VS ANJALI DUA 219 ITR 183 (DEL.) AND ITAT DECISION IN THE CAS E OF RANJEET SINGH VS ACIT 120 TTJ 517. SINCE THE NOTICE U/S 14 8 WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE A.O. HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS BAD IN LAW AND COULD NOT BE SU STAINED. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF TH E A.O. 5. WE HAVE HEAD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED BY THE A.O. WARD 1( 5) FARIDABAD WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO TAX AT DELHI. SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE A.O . AT FARIDABAD THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE A.O . HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AC IT CIRCLE 23(1) NEW DELHI DID NOT ISSUE FRESH NOTICE U/S 148 BUT PR OCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF NOTICE ISSU ED BY THE A.O. FARIDABAD. THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ACIT CIRCLE 23(1) NEW DELHI IS BAD IN LAW. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE I S SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI BENCH F IN THE CASE OF RANJEET SINGH VS ACIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN ON IDENTICAL FACTS THE ASS ESSMENT FRAMED WAS HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW. THE ASSESSEES CASE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ANJALI DUA (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM LUDHIANA TO DELHI AND THEREAFT ER THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 997-98 ONWARDS AT DELHI. THE A.O. AT LUDHIANA HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE DATED 28.03.2003 TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 148 FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL C AME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE A.O. AT LUDHIANA ISSUED NOTICE U/S148 FOR THE I.T.A. NO.2141/DEL/2009 C.O. NO.212/DEL/2009 4/4 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. THE DECISION OF ITAT WAS UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. SINCE THE ISSUE IS CO VERED BY THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O . ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENTS REOPENED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 BY THE A.O. AT FARIDABAD IS BAD IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) CANCELING THE ASSESS MENT. 6. SINCE WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT( A) IN THE REVENUES APPEAL AND THE C.O. IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CO. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COU RT ON 9 TH DECEMBER 2010. SD./- SD./- (A. D. JAIN) (K. D. RANJAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28 TH DEC. 2010 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT TRUE COPY: BY ORDER 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI