ACIT, Meerut v. Krishna Karan Charitable Trust,, Meerut

ITA 3793/DEL/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 379320114 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAATK6943J
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3793/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Meerut
Respondent Krishna Karan Charitable Trust,, Meerut
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 05-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 05-01-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 05-01-2010
Next Hearing Date 05-01-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 07-09-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL AND SHRI A.K GARODIA I.T.A. NOS.3790 3791 3792 & 3793/DEL./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04 04-05 05-06 & 06-07) ACIT CENT. CIRCLE VS. KRISHAN KARAN CHARITABLE TRUST MEERUT. SHIVAJI ROAD MEERUT. (PAN/GIR NO.AAATK6943J) AND C.O. NOS.361 362 363 & 364/DEL./2009 (IN L.T.A. NOS.3790 3791 3792 & 3793/DEL./2009) (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04 04-05 05-06 & 06-07) KRISHAN KARAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. ACIT CENT. CIR CLE MEERUT. MEERUT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : DR. ROOP AR. REVENUE BY : SMT. KAVITA BHATNAGAR CIT(DR) ORDER PER BENCH : THIS BUNCH OF 4 APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND 4 CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE FOUR SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CI T(A) MEERUT ALL DATED 29.06.2009 FOR A.YS.2003-04 04-05 05-06 & 06-07. SINCE SIMILAR AND CONNECTED ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS THESE ARE B EING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE. OUT OF VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CROSS OBJECTIONS WE FIRS T DECIDE GROUND NO.1.5 IN ALL THE FOUR YEARS WHICH IS IDENTICAL AND READS AS UNDER: ITA NOS.3790-3793/DEL./2009 & C.O.NOS.361-363/DEL/2009 (A.YS.2003-04 TO 06-07) 2 1.5 LD.A.O. PROCEEDED WITH THE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT VALID SATISFACTION MANDATORILY REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE U/S 153(C) AND WITHOUT DISPOSING TRUSTS OBJECTIONS TO IMPUGNED NO TICE U/S 153(C). 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON D R. ROOP AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ON 27.10.2005. A NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 WAS ISSUED BY THE AO TO THIS ASSESSEE ON 19.10.2007. IT IS NOTED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA.8 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED TO PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C AND IN ADDITIO N TO OTHER OBJECTIONS THIS OBJECTION WAS ALSO RAISED THAT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED IN ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTION NOTE AS TO HOW THE DOCUMENTS REPRESENTED ESCAPED/UNDISCLOSED I NCOME AND PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED WITHOUT RECEIVING RECORD FROM PREVIOUS AO . THIS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA.8.3 OF HIS ORDER AND NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS BEFORE US IN ALL FOUR YEARS AND THE OBJ ECTION IS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ASPECT ALSO IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER ASPECTS. 4. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER WAS DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) AS PER PARA.8.3 OF HIS OR DER BUT HIS DECISION IS NOT PROPER BECAUSE NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE AO OF T HE SEARCHED PERSON AS REQUIRED U/S 153C OF THE ACT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY HIM ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT & ANOTHER VS. MA NISH MAHESHWARI 289 ITR341. 5. AT THIS JUNCTURE IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE BENC H THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) BY WAY OF PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AND HENCE THIS ASPECT HAS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR A FRESH DECISION. LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO THIS PROPOSITION. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.DR OF THE REVENUE THAT IF THIS ASPECT IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) THE ENTIRE MATTER M AY BE RESTORED BACK TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE SEARCH WAS NOT CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE AND SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF DR. ROOP AND HENCE THE PROCEEDINGS CAN BE INITIATED IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 153C OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C(1) OF T HE I.T. ACT 1961 ARE RELEVANT WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: ITA NOS.3790-3793/DEL./2009 & C.O.NOS.361-363/DEL/2009 (A.YS.2003-04 TO 06-07) 3 153C(1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECT ION 139 SECTION 147 SECTION 148 SECTION 149 SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153 WHER E THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTH ER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITION ED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIO NED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTH ER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSO N AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER PERSON NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A. 7. FROM THE ABOVE WE FIND THAT THERE IS REQUIREMEN T IN THIS SECTION REGARDING THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS WA S THE REQUIREMENT IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. THE REQUIREMENT WAS THAT THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON SHOULD HAVE THE SATISFACTION THAT ANY UNDISC LOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH W AS MADE. AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 153C THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON SHOULD HAVE THE SATISFACTION THAT ANY MONEY/BULLION JEWELERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A OF THE ACT THAT MEANS THE PERSON SEARCHED WHERE A SEARCH HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT OR A PERSON FROM WHOM THERE WAS A REQUISITION U/S 132A. HENCE IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NECESSARY TO FIND OUT AS TO WHE THER A SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 15 3C OF THE ACT BUT NO SPEAKING ORDER IS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT. THIS ASPEC T WAS DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) AS PER PARA.8.3 OF HIS ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER: 8.3 HOWEVER AT THIS STAGE I TEND TO AGREE WITH T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT AS PER NEW PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C THE ONL Y REQUISITE AS MENTIONED IN THE ACT BEING SEIZURE OF CERTAIN MATER IAL PERTAINING TO OTHER PARTIES OTHER THAN PERSONS IN WHOSE CASE SEARCH WAR RANT OR REQUISITION IS ISSUED. THEREFORE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES I HOLD THAT THE NECESSARY INGREDIENTS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS WERE FUL FILLED AND THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C ARE VALIDLY INITIATE D. 8. FROM THE ABOVE WE FIND THAT THIS ASPECT WAS DEC IDED BY THE CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF A NON-SPEAKING ORDER WITHOUT GIV ING ANY FINDING AS TO WHETHER ANY SUCH SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEA RCHED PERSON OR AS TO WHETHER ANY MONEY BULLION JEWELRY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR ITA NOS.3790-3793/DEL./2009 & C.O.NOS.361-363/DEL/2009 (A.YS.2003-04 TO 06-07) 4 DOCUMENTS SEIZED WERE BELONGING TO THIS ASSESSEE AN D ALSO AS TO WHETHER SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED WERE HANDED O VER TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THIS ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC FINDING ON THIS ASPECT OF CIT(A) BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO D ECIDE THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER AND HENCE WE FEEL THAT THIS MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR A FRESH DECISION ON THIS ASPECT BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. WE THEREF ORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO HIS F ILE FOR A FRESH DECISION PER ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. THE CIT(A) SHOULD DECIDE THIS ASPECT BY WAY OF PASSING A SPEAK ING ORDER ON ALL THE RELEVANT ASPECTS. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES IN ALL THE FOUR YEARS. 9. SINCE THE ABOVE ASPECT IS TO BE DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) AFRESH AND HIS DECISION ON THIS LEGAL ISSUE WILL DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER THE A SSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IN THE PRESENT CASE IN ALL THE 4 YEARS IS VALID OR NOT WE FEEL THAT OTHER ASPECTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS AND VARIOUS ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEALS ON MERIT CAN BE DECIDED ONLY AFTER THIS LEGAL ASPECT I S FINALLY DECIDED. SINCE THESE ASPECTS WERE DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) WITHOUT PROPERLY DECIDIN G THE LEGAL ASPECT BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN RESTORED BACK BY US TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION AS PER ABOVE PARA. WE RESTORE THE OTHER ASPECTS ALSO TO H IS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER DECIDING THE LEGAL ASPECT ALREADY RESTORED BY US TO HIS FILE BY WAY OF ABOVE PARA. HENCE THE OTHER ASPECTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTI ONS AND VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEALS DO NOT CALL FOR ANY ADJUDICA TION AT THIS STAGE. 9. IN THE RESULT ALL THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE A SSESSEE AND ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE CONCLUSIO N OF THE HEARING ON 05. 01.2010. SD/- SD/- (I.P.BANSAL) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SKB DATED JANAURY 05 2010. ITA NOS.3790-3793/DEL./2009 & C.O.NOS.361-363/DEL/2009 (A.YS.2003-04 TO 06-07) 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A) MEERUT. 5.CIT(ITAT) NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT