M/s Prathibha Jewellery House, Bangalore v. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 580/BANG/2014 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 58021114 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AABFP1771G
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 580/BANG/2014
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant M/s Prathibha Jewellery House, Bangalore
Respondent DCIT, Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 21-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 12-11-2014
Next Hearing Date 12-11-2014
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 01-05-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 579 TO 585 / BANG/20 1 4 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 TO 2011 - 12 ) M/S.PRATHIBHA JEWELLERY HOUSE 1/1 RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD RICHMOND CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560025. APPELLANT PAN: AABFP1771G VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI S.VENKATESAN CA. RESPOND ENT BY: MS. PRISCILLA SINGSIT CIT - III(DR). DATE OF HEARING : 12 / 11 /2014 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21 / 11 / 2014 . O R D E R PER BENCH : ALL THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - VI BANGALORE DATE D 28/02/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2011 - 12. IN ALL THESE APPEALS ONE OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH AND THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT 196 1[HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT'] DATED 31/03/2013 ITA NO S . 579 TO 585 /BANG/2014 M/S.PRATIBHA JEWELLERY HOUSE. PAGE 2 OF 4 ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED U/S 132(1)(A) 132(1)(B) AND 132(1)(C) DID NOT EXIST TO ISSUE THE WARRANT OF SEARCH. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HA D ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.RAMAIAH REDDY (339 ITR 210). THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS AN ADDITIONAL GRO UND OF APPEAL AND THE CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ON THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL ALONG WITH OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT WITHOUT MAKING ANY COMMENT S ON THE FACTS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS NON - EXISTENCE OF GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANT . THUS ACCORDING TO HIM BY REMAINING SILENT THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE GROUNDS NOT EX ISTING FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF SEARCH. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) IN SPITE OF THE ABOVE SILENCE OF THE AO HAS REJECTED THE ASSESSEE S CONTENTION BY PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TRILOKSINGH WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.RAMAIAH REDDY ( CITED SUPRA ) . THUS ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND NOT VERIFYING THE RECORDS BY HERSELF TO SATISFY ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS FOR ITA NO S . 579 TO 585 /BANG/2014 M/S.PRATIBHA JEWELLERY HOUSE. PAGE 3 OF 4 ISSUANCE OF WARRANT IF SHE DID NOT WANT TO ACCEPT THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO. THUS ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSMENT H AS TO BE SET ASIDE ON THIS GROUND ALONE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ADDITIONAL G ROUND OF APPEAL PARTICULARLY AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF SEARCH AND THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE REMAND REPORT TO THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE T HE AO HAS CLEARLY NOT ONLY NOT REBUTTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO HAS REMAINED SILENT AS TO WHETHER THE CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF SEARCH EXISTED AT ALL. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE AT LEAST SATISFIED HERSELF ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS BEFORE CONCLUDING THAT THAT THE JURISDICTION HAS BEEN VALIDLY EXERCISED BY THE AO IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMAIAH REDDY (CITED SU PRA) ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON. ALL THE SUBORDINATE COURTS AND AUTHORITIES ARE BOUND BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND HAS TO FOLLOW THE SAME IN ITS LETTER AND SPIRIT . IN VIEW OF THE SAME WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER AND REMAND THE ITA NO S . 579 TO 585 /BANG/2014 M/S.PRATIBHA JEWELLERY HOUSE. PAGE 4 OF 4 APPEALS FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION U/S 153A AS WELL AS THE EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF WARR ANT U/S 132A OF THE ACT. THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE MERITS OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) ARE NOT ADJUDICATE D AT THIS STAGE AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERT Y TO AGITATE THE SAME IN CASE THE CIT(A) DECIDES THE GROUND OF JURISDICTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRON OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST OF NOVEMBER 201 4. S D/ - S D/ - ( ABRAHAM P GEORGE ) ( SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER EKSRINIVASULU COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL BANGALORE.