Sh. Pawan Arora, New Delhi v. DCIT, New Delhi

ITSSA 13/DEL/2009 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1320116 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN DELOF2009I
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITSSA 13/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Pawan Arora, New Delhi
Respondent DCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 13-10-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 13-10-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 31-08-2009
Next Hearing Date 31-08-2009
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 02-02-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.(SS) A.NO.13/DEL/2009 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 198 7-88 TO 1997-98 SHRI PAWAN ARORA DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX D-1/171 LAJPAT NAGAR PART-U VS. CENTRAL CIRCLE- 10 NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R .S. SINGHVI AR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASH OK K. PANDEY CIT-DR. O R D E R PER C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER. THIS IS A DIRECT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31-12-2008 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UN DER SEC. 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1987-88 TO 1997- 98. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ONE PRELIMINARY GROUND TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION IN MAKING THI S FRESH ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 158BC READ WITH SEC. 254 OF THE ACT INASMUCH A S THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 28.1.1997 WAS NEVER RESTORED BACK TO THE AO FOR HIS FRESH ASSESSMENT BU T WAS ACTUALLY SET ASIDE 2 FOR WANT OF SATISFACTION REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 158BD OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONNECTION HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONSOLI DATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 05.04.2007 PASSED IN GROUP OF CASES IN IT(SS) NOS.349 TO 354/DEL/1997 IT(SS) NO.104/D/97 12/D/97 & 105/DEL /98 WHERE THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THESE APPEALS BY OBSERVING AND HOL DING AS UNDER:- 90. SIMILARLY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT NO VALID OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E MAKING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT THE SATISFACTION WAS NOT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT WE SET ASIDE THE IM PUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN ALL THE CASES NOTED ABOVE ON T HIS PRELIMINARY ISSUE. SINCE WE ARE SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON LEGAL GROUND THERE IS NO NEED TO DISCUSS OTHER GROUNDS TAKEN IN ALL THESE APPEALS ON MERIT. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THE FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN S OME OTHER CASES NAMELY MRS. ALKA SINGH AND MRS. ARVINDER SINGH MRS. DEVYA NI SINGH AND M/S. ELEGANT TRAVELS PVT. LTD. HAS BEEN CANCELLED IN TH E LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEALS THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT SE T ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO THE AO FOR HIS FRESH ASSESSMENT BUT ASSESSMENTS WERE SE T ASIDE FOR WANT OF SATISFACTION REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 158BD OF THE ACT. COPIES OF THESE ORDERS DATED 16 TH DECEMBER 2009 IN IT(SS) A. NOS. 15 TO 17/DEL/2009 IT(SS) NO.10/DEL/2009 DATED 4 TH SEPTEMBER 2009 AND ORDER DATED 16 TH OCTOBER 2009 IN IT(SS) NO.12/DEL/2009 ARE PLACED ON RECORD. 3 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE CASE OF MRS. DEVYANI SINGH VS. DCIT IN IT(SS) N O.10/DEL/2009 ITAT DELHI BENCH `B. NEW DELHI HAS DECIDED THIS IDENTIC AL ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PE RUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE SHOWS THAT THE ISSUE OF RECORDING THE SATISFACTION HAS BEEN CH ALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORIGINAL PR OCEEDINGS. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT WHEN THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASID E THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS THE A SSESSMENT HAD BEEN SET ASIDE ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-RECORDING OF SATISFACTION. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT IN THE SET P ROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE HAS AGAIN CHALLENGED THE RECO RDING OF SATISFACTION AND THIS CHALLENGE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN MET BY THE A.O. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE REVENUE HA S NOT BEEN ABLE TO PLACE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT SATISF ACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE CASE IN LINE WITH THE DECISIO N OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI REFE RRED TO SUPRA. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SATISFACTION HAVING NOT BEEN RECORDED FOR THE PURPO SE OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSMENT AS MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 158BD IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED AND WE DO S O. EVEN ON MERITS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE BANK PASSBOOK WHICH IS THE DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES EVEN ON ME RITS NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 5. IDENTICAL ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY ITAT DELHI BE NCH `B NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF M/S. ELEGANT TRAVELS P. LTD. VS. DCI T IN IT(SS) NO.12/DEL/2009 BEING DATED 16 TH OCTOBER 2009. SIMILAR ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN IT(SS) A. NOS. 15 TO 17/DEL OF 2009 IN TH E CASES OF MRS. ALKA 4 SINGH MR. & MRS. ARVINDER SINGH WHERE THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. ELEGANT TRAVELS P. LTD . HAS BEEN REFERRED TO. SINCE THE PRESENT CASE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE FIRST ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN FIRST ROUND DATED 5 TH APRIL 2007 WHERE THE PRESENT ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ONE OF THE APPELLANTS AND IN THAT CASE THE MAT TER WAS NOT RESTORED BACK TO THE AO FOR HIS FRESH ASSESSMENT BUT ASSESSMENT ORIG INALLY MADE BY HIM WAS SET ASIDE FOR WANT OF SATISFACTION REQUIRED UNDER S EC. 158BD OF THE ACT WE CANCEL THIS FRESH ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH OCTOBER 2010. SD/- SD/- (K.G. BANSAL) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13 TH OCTOBER 2010. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT.