Smt.Lizzy Paulose, Ernakulam v. DCIT, Ernakulam

ITA 209/COCH/2012 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2013

Appeal Details

RSA Number 20921914 RSA 2012
Bench Cochin
Appeal Number ITA 209/COCH/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant Smt.Lizzy Paulose, Ernakulam
Respondent DCIT, Ernakulam
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 25-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 21-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 21-10-2013
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 16-07-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN JM AND B.R.BASKAR AN AM I.T.A. NOS. 209-213/COCH/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04-2007-08 SMT. LIZZY PAULOSE OLICKAL HOUSE 5/255 THENGODE KAKKANAD KOCHI-30. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ERNAKULAM. (ASSESSEE -APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDEN T) ASSESSEE BY SMT. DIVYA RAVINDRAN ADV. REVENUE BY SHRI K.K. JOHN SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 23/10/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25/10/2013 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 21- 12-2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-III KOCHI AND THE Y RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2007-08. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASES ARE STATED IN BR IEF. THE DEPARTMENT CARRIED OUT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS U/S. 132 OF THE ACT I N THE HANDS OF THE SPOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE NAMED SHRI P.J. PAULOSE. CONSEQUENT THERE TO NOTICES U/S. 153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONS IDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENTS U/S. 144 R.W.S. 153C OF T HE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED ALL THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS BY FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE APPEAL S BEFORE US. I.T.A. NOS. 209-213/COCH/2012 2 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HEARD THE ALL THE ASSESSEES CASES ALONG WITH HER HUSBANDS C ASES. THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT IN TH E HANDS OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHOSE TO TREAT THE ASSESSMENT ORD ERS PASSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HEREIN AS EX-PARTE ORDERS U/S. 144 OF THE ACT WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE INCOME ASSESSED IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN SOURCED FROM HER HUSBAND. FURTHER THE SAID SOURCES HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED IN THE HANDS SHRI P.J. PAULOSE THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSE E. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPRECIATE THESE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND HENCE THE SAME HAS LED TO DOUBLE ASSESSM ENT OF SAME INCOME. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT( A) SHOULD BE SET ASIDE. 4. WHEN THE LD. AR WAS ASKED ABOUT THE PENDENCY OF APPEALS IF ANY FILED BY SHRI PAULOSE EITHER BEFORE TRIBUNAL OR BEFORE LD CIT(A) THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEALS ARE PENDING WITH THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE THE LD. DR DISPUTED THE SAID SUBMISSIONS AN OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE LD. DR TO VERIFY ABOUT THE PENDENCY OF APPEALS IF ANY FILED BY SHRI PAULOSE BEFORE LD CI T(A). IN THE SUBSEQUENT HEARING THE LD. DR CONFIRMED THAT NO APPEAL IS PENDING WITH THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF SHRI PAULOSE. ACCORDINGLY THESE CASES WERE TAKEN UP FO R HEARING ON MERITS. 5. HOWEVER DURING THE COURSE OF SUBSEQUENT HEARING THE LD. AR CLARIFIED THAT THE APPEALS FILED BY SHRI P.J. PAULOSE BEFORE LD CIT(A) WERE DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON TECHNICAL REASON THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT PAY THE ADMITTED TAX BEFORE FILING THE APPEALS. THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SHRI PA ULOSE PAID THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX SUBSEQUENTLY AND ACCORDINGLY HE HAS MOVED A PETITI ON BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SEEKING RECALL OF THE ORDERS. 6. THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SHRI PAULOSE H AS RECEIVED A NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 20-09-2013 FROM THE LD. CIT(A)-III KOCHI FIX ING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 25-09- 2013. THE LD A.R ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF HEARING NOTICE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH HE APPEARED I.T.A. NOS. 209-213/COCH/2012 3 ON THE DATE OF HEARING THE CASES GOT ADJOURNED ON THAT DATE. AT THIS JUNCTURE THE LD. DR SOUGHT TIME TO VERIFY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E LD. AR. 7. IN THE SUBSEQUENT HEARING THE LD. DR ADMIT TED THAT THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ISSUED NOTICES OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. HOW EVER HE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS NOT SURE AS TO WHETHER THE SAID NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN CO NNECTION WITH THE PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECALL OF THE ORDER OR FOR HEA RING OF THE APPEALS. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO FILE CERTAIN IMPORTANT DO CUMENTS BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES AND ACCORDINGLY MOVED A PETITION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL S EEKING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION IN SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R RE-CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE ISSUE AFRESH. THE LD. DR ALSO DID NOT OBJECT TO THE PLEA MADE BY THE LD. AR. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DO NE U/S. 153C OF THE ACT SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS CON DUCTED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND. THOUGH THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BE EN COMPLETED EX-PARTE U/S. 144 OF THE ACT THE LD. AR CONTENDS BEFORE US THAT THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE HEARD ALONG WITH THE CASES OF HER HUSBAND. ACCORDINGLY I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSING EX PARTE ASSES SMENTS. BEFORE US THE LD. AR HAS ALSO PRODUCED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCES WITH THE PLEA THAT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NEED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR REND ERING JUSTICE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE HA NDS OF HER HUSBAND. 8. FROM THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WE NO TICE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ISSUED NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 20-09-2013 TO SHRI P .J. PAULOSE FIXING THE HEARING ON 24- 09-2013. THE LD D.R HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT C LEAR AS TO WHETHER THE SAID NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PETITION FIL ED BY SHRI P.J. PAULOSE FOR RECALL OF I.T.A. NOS. 209-213/COCH/2012 4 ORDER DISMISSED IN LIMINE OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHATEVER MAY BE THE REASONS FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE REFERRED ABOVE IN OUR VIEW THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HEREIN AS WELL AS THO SE FILED BY SHRI P.J. PAULOSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER SINCE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT THEY ARE INTER CONNECTED. ACCORDINGLY WE THINK IT FIT TO REMIT ALL THE MATTERS TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) SO THAT IT WOULD ENABLE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO TAKE A HARMONIOUS VIEW IN BOTH THE CASES. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HEREIN AND RESTORE ALL THE MA TTERS TO THE FILE OF LD CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 9. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 25-10- 2013. SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 25TH OCTOBER 2013 GJ COPY TO: 1. SMT. LIZZY PAULOSE OLICKAL HOUSE 5/255 THENGO DE KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL C IRCLE-2 ERNAKULAM. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-III KOCH I. 4.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL KOCHI. 5. D.R. I.T.A.T. COCHIN BENCH COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T COCHIN