Sh. Hardeep Singh (HUF), Chandigarh v. ITO,, Chandigarh

ITA 141/CHANDI/2006 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2010

Appeal Details

RSA Number 14121514 RSA 2006
Assessee PAN AQFPK8542E
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 141/CHANDI/2006
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Hardeep Singh (HUF), Chandigarh
Respondent ITO,, Chandigarh
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 28-01-2010
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 22-02-2006
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 141/CHD/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01 SHRI HARDEEP SINGH(HUF) VS. ITO WARD 5(3) THROUGH L/H KULBIR KAUR CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AQFPK8542E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHOK GOYAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R.K.MEENA ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA JM THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CHANDIGARH DATED 29.8.2005 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2000-01 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. A CT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) CHANDIGARH HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT LAND IN QUESTION IS NOT AGRICULTURAL L AND BUT A CAPITAL ASSET AND CAPITAL GAIN LEVIED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ON THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF THE SAID LAND ACQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT IS CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT LAND IN QUESTION IS NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND BUT A CAP ITAL 2 ASSET AND THE SAME IS HELD BY THE CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ABOVE FACTS IT IS SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED HIS SATISFA CTION WHILE ISSUING NOTICE U/S148 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 4. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN WRO NGLY INITIATED. 3. THE LEARNED AR AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT TH E ISSUE OF REOPENING U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ALSO AROSE IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED PERSONS AND THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF T HE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 18.10.2007 HAD QUASHED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER ASSOCIATED PERSONS WAS WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS ON COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND. 4. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WE FIND THAT TH E PRESENT APPEAL WAS FILED AFTER A DELAY OF 73 DAYS AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 16.7.2006 HAD MADE A REQUEST FOR THE C ONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE REASONS FOR DELAY I N FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ADMITTED TO HOSPI TAL AT MORINDA IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 2005 AND HE EXPIRED ON 21.12.2005. AFTER HIS DEATH THE LEGAL HEIRS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL ONLY WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE THAT THE APPEAL HAD NOT BEEN FILED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND AFTER PERUSING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE ENCLOSED CERTIFICATE OF DEAT H WE FIND MERIT IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL MOVED BY 3 THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL IS TAKEN ON RECORD FOR DISPOSAL. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD RECEIVED ENHANCED COMPENSAT ION ON ACQUISITION OF LAND WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE AGRICULTURAL IN NAT URE. THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1992-93. THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID LAND WAS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF CAPITAL GA INS TAXES. SIMILAR LAND WAS ACQUIRED IN THE CASE OF S/SHRI PREM SINGH HUF ANGREJ SINGH HUF GURMEET SINGH HUF AND NEHHAR SINGH HUF CHANDIGARH. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RECEIVED INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 147/ 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. SIMILAR RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE C ARRIED OUT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSOCIATED PERSONS. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 1075 1076 1103/CHANDI/2005 AND 111/CHANDI/2006 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2000-01 IN THE CASE OF S/SHRI PREM SINGH HUF ANGREJ SINGH HU F GURMEET SINGH HUF AND NEHHAR SINGH HUF RESPECTIVELY AFTER DELIBE RATION ON THE ISSUE OF REOPENING HAD HELD AS UNDER:- THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW THE REASON CANVASSED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS DENOTI NG ANY ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSES OF INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. AS A CONSEQUENCE IT IS TO BE DEDUCTED THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON WHICH HE WO ULD FORM A BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 19.3.2002 THEREAFTER LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. WE HOLD SO. SINCE THE INIT IATION OF PROCEEDINGS IS VITIATED IN LAW THE SUBSEQUENT 4 ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THUS T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 4.12.2002 PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147/148 IS HEREBY QUASHED. 6. IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBU NAL IN ORDER DATED 18.10.2007 WE HOLD THAT INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS IS BAD IN LAW AND SAME IS QUASHED. THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS ALSO LIABLE TO THE QUASHED IN THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY WE QUASH T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOWED. AS THE ASS ESSMENT IN THE CASE HAS BEEN QUASHED WE ARE NOT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE ON TH E MERITS OF THE CASE. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2010. SD/- SD/- (G.S.PANNU) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28 TH JANUARY 2010 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR