Lucknow evelopment Authority, Lucknow v. I.T.O., Lucknow

ITA 653/LKW/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 65323714 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAALL0016F
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 653/LKW/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant Lucknow evelopment Authority, Lucknow
Respondent I.T.O., Lucknow
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 19-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 19-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 19-01-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 08-12-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B - BENCH LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.653(LKW.)/2009 A.Y.: 2006-07 LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. THE ITO II(2) NAVEEN BHAWAN VIPIN KHAND LUCKNOW. LUCKNOW. PAN AAALL0016F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AMIT SHUKLA ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIVEK MISHRA CIT(D.R.) O R D E R PER H.L.KARWA VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-I LUCKNOW DATED 9.10.2009 RELATING TO TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: 1. BECAUSE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-II(2) LUCKNOW DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO ACT AS ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASE AND VIEW TO THE CONTRARY AS HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IS WHOLLY ERRONEOUS AS BEING INCONSISTENT WITH THE P ROVISIONS OF LAW AND MATERIAL AND INFORMATION ON RECORD. 2. BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAD DULY OBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER II(2) LUCKNOW TO ACT AS ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASE AND SUCH OBJECTION WAS LIABLE TO BE TREATED TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY HIM (ITO-II(2) LUCKNOW) AS REFERENCE TO THE 2 CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HAD NOT BEEN MADE BY HIM UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) READ WITH SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTIO N 124 OF THE ACT. 3. BECAUSE WHILE UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY AND ENFORC EABILITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2008 THE 'CIT (APPEALS)' HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND MISSED TO NOTE THAT - (A) LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAD FILED THE 'R ETURN' IN THE STATUS OF 'AOP TRUST '; (B) REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD ALSO BEEN I NITIATED ON THE BASIS OF SAID 'RETURN' [(INVALIDITY ITSELF OF ASSUM PTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE ITOII(2) LUCKNOW APART]; (C) DURING THE COURSE OF EXTENSIVE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS THE INCOMETAX OFFICER-II(2) LUCKNOW NEVER GAVE NOTICE TO MAKE ASSESSMENT IN THE STATUS OF 'ARTIFICIAL JURIDICAL P ERSON'; (D) SUCH A STATUS FALLS IN THE RESIDUARY CATEGORY OF THE 'PERSONS' AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(31) OF THE ACT WHICH IS DIFFE RENT FROM 'AOP'; 4. BECAUSE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. SHRI AMIT SHUKLA ADVOCATE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS APPLICATION DATED 19.1.2011 HAS STATED AS UNDER : BEFORE THE HON'BLE MEMBERS DATE: 19.1.2011. INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCHB LUCKNOW. SIRS RE: LUCNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ITA NO.653/LKW/2009 RELATING TO A.Y. 2006-07- IN THE AFORESAID APPEAL THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED TWO LEGAL ISSUES FIRSTLY THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER I.T.O.II(2) TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS CA SE AND ; 3 SECONDLY THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED IN A DIFFERENT STATU S I.E. ARTIFICIAL JURIDICAL PERSON (AJP) WHEN THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME IN THE STATUS OF A.O.P. WHICH WAS ITS CORRECT STATUS. 2. IN THE FIRST APPEAL. LD.CIT(APPEALS)-I LUCKNOW HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER O N MERITS RELIEF WAS ALLOWED. AGAINST THE SAID RELIEF THE DE PARTMENT HAS PREFERRED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT WHICH HAS B EEN DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.2.2010. THUS THE REL IEF ON MERITS HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE ITAT. 3. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS GOT RELIEF ON MERITS TH E AFORESAID LEGAL ISSUES AS RAISED IN ABOVE APPEAL BY THE APPE LLANT HAS BECOME PURELY ACADEMIC. THUS IT IS RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE TREATED AS PURELY ACADEM IC WHICH DOES NOT WARRANT ANY ADJUDICATION AS SUCH BE TREAT ED AS DISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. YOURS FAITHFULLY SD. AMIT SHUKLA ADVOCATE 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE TREAT THE APPEAL AS DI SMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.1.20 11. SD. SD. (N.K.SAINI) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT JANUARY 19TH 2011. COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R. ITAT LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA.