Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ranchi
M/S Naween Transport Company, Bokaro vs Acit Circle-2, Hazaribagh on 20 January, 2020
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "RANCHI" BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 56/Ran/2018 ( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Naween Transport बनाम/ ACIT Company Vs. Circle -2, Hazaribagh Jaridih Bazar, Bermo, Bokaro - 829114 थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AADFN9613K (अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent) अपीलाथ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri D. C. Agarwal, Advocate यथ क ओर से / Shri Inderjeet Singh, Sr. CIT (DR) Respondent by :
सन ु वाई क तार ख / Date of 06/11/2019 Hearing घोषणा क तार ख /Date of 20/01/2020 Pronouncement आदे श/O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hazaribagh (C IT(A)' in short), dated 13.02.2018 arising in the assessment order dated 14.11.2017 passed b y the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 147/143(3) of the In come Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2010-
11. ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween
T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 2 -
2. The grounds of appeal raised b y the assessee read as under:
"1. For that the order of the learned Commiss ioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) is illegal, excessive and beyond the facts and circumstances of the case and as such is not maintainable.
2. For that on perusal of the order, it appears that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) has disallowed the appeal only on the basis that the evidence provided was new although he has failed to mention that the evidences were already produced before the assessing officer at the time of original assessment done u/s 143(3) on 23/01/2012.
3. For that the learned CIT (A) has completel y ignored the fact that TDS was duly deducted and paid and pr oof of the same was submitted with hi m.
4. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) ought to have considered the merits of the case and should not have focused on technical issues. The appellant i s being penalized for technical issues rather than any escapement of income.
5. For that the lear ned CIT (A) ought to have considered that before the service of the notice the order was passed by the learned assessing officer and he ought to have looked into the evidences produced before him because the learned assessing officer had passed his order in haste.
6. For that the reopening of the case u/s 14-Twas bad in law especially in view of the fact that the original order u/s 143(3) had already covered the point of TDS deducted and deposited u/s 194C.
7. For that the CIT (A) has erred in not considering the fact that column 27 (a) of Form 3CD of the audit report specifically mentions that TDS provision has been proper ly complied.
8. For that the confirmation of addition at Rs. 3,51,98,334/- is illegal, and beyond all canon of justice."
3. The assessee in the instant case has challenged the action of the AO both on merits as well as on the point of unlawful usurpation of jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act.
4. Since the assessee has raised legal question on usurpation of jurisdiction b y the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the completed assessment in the instant case, it would be pertinent to deal with the aforesaid question at the outset.ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween
T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 3 -
5. The learned AR for the assessee at the outset submitted that the AO has wrongl y assumed the jurisdiction for making reassessment b y issuing notice under s.148 of the Act without authorit y of law. The Ld.AR submitted that the ingredients of section 147/148 are not fulfilled in the instant case to enable the AO to exercise jurisdiction and to proceed with re-assessment proceedings. The learned AR further submitted that the assessment has been reopened without meeting the requirements of first proviso to section 147 of the Act. The learned AR next submitted that the assessment for AY 2010-11 was earlier completed under s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23.01.2011 and the notice for reassessment has been issued after four years from the end of the relevant AY 2010-11 on 31.03.2017. Thus, the AO was entitled to exercise jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act only upon fulfillment of additional conditions imposed under first proviso to section 147 of the Act. It was alleged that the AO has issued the notice under s.147/148 of the Act without meeting these requirements of first proviso to section 147 of the Act. It was further contended that the original assessment was made after proper enquiry on deductibilit y of TDS under s.194C of the Act and other provisions of the Act and the original assessment was passed after proper verification of TDS, reconciliation of assessment and proof regarding payment of tax/TDS certificate in relation to various expenses. The material alread y placed before the AO was later reviewed b y the Audit Part y/AO and based on such review of material alread y available in the file of the AO, the AO proceeded to invoke provisions of section 147 of the Act. The learned AR for the assessee also referred to the reasons recorded and contended that there is no allegation on the part of the AO that the assessee has failed to disclose an y material fact full y and trul y at the time of original assessment and therefore the action of reopening is without an y legall y sound basis for invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act. It was further alleged that the action of the AO is nothing but change of opinion on the same issue based on review of material alread y placed on record which is not permissible in law. It was thus alleged that the act of the AO in reopening the completed assessment after four years from the end of the assessment year is neither sustainable under main provisions of ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 4 -
Section 147 of the Act nor on account of stringent embargo placed upon the AO under first proviso thereto. The learned AR also submitted that it is not discernible from the record as to what material facts were not disclosed full y and trul y which has resulted in alleged escapement of income. It was thus contended that the AO has wrongfull y assumed the jurisdiction vested under s.147 of the Act without meeting legal requirements. On merits, the learned AR for the assessee referred to the written submissions made before the CIT(A) as reproduced in para 5 of appellate order and pointed out that the requirements of Chapter XVII towards vicarious liabilit y placed upon the assessee has been dul y complied with and the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for disallowance of expenses are not attracted.
6. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the action of the AO on the issue of validit y of usurption of jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee has incurred staggering amount of expenses pegged at Rs.2,19,94,327/- on account of loading charges/unloading charges and labour expenses. The assessee has neither deducted TDS under s.194C of the Act on such payments nor filed an y evidence as obligated under the provisions codified in Chapter XVII-B of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO has correctl y reopened the assessment in accordance with law after taking necessary approvals of the superior authorit y contemplated under s.151 of the Act. It was thus pleaded that no interference with the order of the C IT(A) is called for on the legal ground raised b y the assessee at this belated stage and not objected to before the C IT(A).
7. The legal issue on validit y of assumption of jurisdiction under s.147/148 is dealt with hereunder.
7.1. The reasons recorded under s.148(2) giving cause for issuance of notice under s.148 is pertinent to determine the jurisdictional issue. Accordingl y, the reasons so recorded b y the AO for reopening the completed assessment is reproduced hereunder:-
ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (NaweenT r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 5 -
"In the P&L a/c, assessee has debited expense of Rs.1,40,59,105/- under the head 'Loading charges, Rs .63,82,446/- under the head unloading charges and Rs.15,52,776/- under the head of Labour expenses. The assessee has neither deducted TDS u/s 194C nor filed any details in respect of these expense which comes to Rs.2,19,94,327/- 14059105 + 6382446 + 1552776] , which attracts the provision of section 40a(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Al so in column 27(a) of Form No.3CD the auditor has mentioned deduction of tax at source regarding the payment thereof to the credit of Central Govt. under provision of chapter XVII-B but the evidence was not avai lable.
Further, assessee has done contractual work at VISA Steel Ltd., DVC, CTPS Chandrapura and claimed Rs .1,44,38,977/- under the head 'Transporting charges '. The assessee had made payment above Rs .1 lacs but not filed any detai ls of TDS made on these payments.
Therefore, I have reason to believe that an amount of Rs.3,64,33,304/- [ 2,19,94,327 + 14438977] escaped income for which action as per 147/148 is to be initiated."
7.2. Before we look into the reasons so recorded, it will be pertinent to notice that the instant case pertains to AY 2011-12 where the assessment order was earlier framed under s.143(3) vide order dated 23/01/2011. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee and can also be seen from the assessment order itself specific inquiry about deduction of TDS on expenses was made and the assessment was framed thereupon. Thus, as per the assessment order itself, an inquiry was made on deduction of TDS. The assessment was thereafter framed wherein no disallowance was made in consequence of aforesaid inquiry.
7.3. Subsequentl y, a notice under s.148 of the Act has been issued after approval of the Pr.CIT under s.151 of the Act on 30.03.2017 making out a case of purported infringement of section 194C of the Act ostensibl y on review of existing records. In consequence of relook at records, the AO appears to have recorded reason for re-opening the completed assessment after four years from the end of the relevant AY 2010-11 as noted in earlier paras.
7.4 In the background of aforesaid facts, we now take notice of the reasons recorded as reproduced earlier. A bare perusal of the reasons recorded suggests that the AO has propelled himself to reopen the ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 6 -
assessment for the simple reason that the assessee is found to have not complied with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Act including Section 194C of the Act thereunder. We do not find an y reference to the assessment made under s.143(3) of the Act earlier in the reasons so recorded. We also do not find an y allegation in the reasons recorded against the assessee that income has escaped assessment owing to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts full y and trul y at the time of assessment. It is not discernible from the reasons recorded as to how the enquiry made on the very issue at the time of the original assessment suffered from error and was unsustainable on facts and law. It is well settled that mere review of existing facts b y the same authorit y later to come to a different conclusion and thereb y reopening the completed assessment is not permissible in law. Notabl y, section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not plenary in nature and is subject to certain exceptions and also have been matter of legal interpretation from time-to- time. Therefore, where the issue in controvers y has been subject matter of specific examination and acceptance, a logical inference would be that an opinion on the issue was framed by statutory authorit y whereb y disallowance under s.40(a)(ia) of the Act was not found attracted. Needless to say, reopening of a completed assessment under s.143(3) of the Act is not permissible on a mere change of opinion on the same issue examined earlier. Therefore, it is difficult to agree that the AO has passed the stringent test laid down in main provision and first proviso thereto for conferment of power under s.147 of the Act. Section 147 of the Act is a substantive provision granting jurisdiction to reopen completed assessment and therefore conditions stipulated therein are strictl y required to be adhered. Section 147 of the Act is structured with inbuilt safeguards. The AO is not permitted to exercise the power under s.147 of the Act arbitraril y or mechanically.
7.5 In the instant case, we find that the action under s.147 of the Act was sought to be taken in respect of assessment completed under s.143(3) of the Act earlier after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year alleging escapement of income from taxation.
ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (NaweenT r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 7 -
Therefore, the action of the AO is also required to be tested on the touchstone of embargo placed b y the first proviso to section 147 of the Act. The first proviso to section 147 of the Act places additional restrictions on the AO for usurption of jurisdiction. As per the proviso, the escapement of chargeable income should be b y reasons of the failure on the part of the assessee to inter-alia disclose full y and trul y all material facts necessary for assessment of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. We do not find an ything in the reasons recorded which goes to demonstrate that the assessee has failed to disclose an y material fact relevant for assessment in the original proceedings. As a matter of fact, there is no allegation of the AO on this score in the reasons recorded as noted above. We do not find an ything on record to show as to what material facts remained to be disclosed b y the assessee in the original assessment proceedings. Significantl y, the re-assessment order passed under s.147 of the Act also does not portray an y concern of the AO on this aspect. Ostensibl y, in the absence of an express allegation as a starting point, the conditions stipulated under first proviso under s.147 of the Act are not complied with. In this event, where embargo placed b y the first proviso could not be overcome, the legitimacy of notice issued under the provisions of section 147 of the Act is vitiated. It is also the categorical case of assessee that TDS obligations under s.194C of the Act were dul y met and challans for payments were also placed before lower authorities. The entire reassessment proceedings, thus, is without jurisdiction and liable to annulled. The consequent re-assessment order is also therefore liable to be struck down and cancelled as bad in law. We do so accordingl y.
7.6 At this stage, it will also be relevant to take note of the objection on behalf of the Revenue that challenge to jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act has been raised for the first time before the Tribunal. In this regard, we observe that it is well settled that the question of lack of jurisdiction is pure question of law capable of being adjudged on be basis of material on record. There is no estoppel available to the Revenue on the ground that assessee did not raise the question of jurisdiction before the lower ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 8 -
authorities. Estoppel cannot give jurisdiction over a matter which is otherwise lacking. If an authorit y is found to have no jurisdiction to invoke reopening of a completed assessment, the consent or waiver can never give the jurisdiction to the authorit y concerned. Such view has been expressed J. S. Parker 94 ITR 616 (Guj) & P. V. Doshi vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Guj).
7.7 In view of our above findings that the issuance of notice under s.147/148 of the Act is void ab initio and accordingl y reassessment order is without jurisdiction and therefore illegal, we do not consider it expedient to deal with the merits of the factual aspects of the case.
8. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 20/01/2020 Sd/- Sd/-
(MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ranchi: Dated 20/01/2020
True Copy
S. K. SINHA
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. राज व / Revenue
2. आवेदक / Assessee
3. संबं*धत आयकर आय,
ु त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आय,
ु त- अपील / CIT (A)
5. 0वभागीय 3त3न*ध, आयकर अपील य अ*धकरण, रांची /
DR, ITAT, Ranchi
6. गाड8 फाइल / Guard file.
B y o r d er ,
Sr . P r i va te Secr et ar y
I T AT , Ah med ab ad
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"RANCHI" BENCH, RANCHI
BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 56/Ran/2018 ( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Naween Transport बनाम/ ACIT Company Vs. Circle -2, Hazaribagh Jaridih Bazar, Bermo, Bokaro - 829114 थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AADFN9613K (अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent) अपीलाथ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri D. C. Agarwal, Advocate यथ क ओर से / Shri Inderjeet Singh, Sr. CIT (DR) Respondent by :
सन ु वाई क तार ख / Date of 06/11/2019 Hearing घोषणा क तार ख /Date of 20/01/2020 Pronouncement आदे श/O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hazaribagh (C IT(A)' in short), dated 13.02.2018 arising in the assessment order dated 14.11.2017 passed b y the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 147/143(3) of the In come Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2010-
11. ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween
T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 2 -
2. The grounds of appeal raised b y the assessee read as under:
"1. For that the order of the learned Commiss ioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) is illegal, excessive and beyond the facts and circumstances of the case and as such is not maintainable.
2. For that on perusal of the order, it appears that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) has disallowed the appeal only on the basis that the evidence provided was new although he has failed to mention that the evidences were already produced before the assessing officer at the time of original assessment done u/s 143(3) on 23/01/2012.
3. For that the learned CIT (A) has completel y ignored the fact that TDS was duly deducted and paid and pr oof of the same was submitted with hi m.
4. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) ought to have considered the merits of the case and should not have focused on technical issues. The appellant i s being penalized for technical issues rather than any escapement of income.
5. For that the lear ned CIT (A) ought to have considered that before the service of the notice the order was passed by the learned assessing officer and he ought to have looked into the evidences produced before him because the learned assessing officer had passed his order in haste.
6. For that the reopening of the case u/s 14-Twas bad in law especially in view of the fact that the original order u/s 143(3) had already covered the point of TDS deducted and deposited u/s 194C.
7. For that the CIT (A) has erred in not considering the fact that column 27 (a) of Form 3CD of the audit report specifically mentions that TDS provision has been proper ly complied.
8. For that the confirmation of addition at Rs. 3,51,98,334/- is illegal, and beyond all canon of justice."
3. The assessee in the instant case has challenged the action of the AO both on merits as well as on the point of unlawful usurpation of jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act.
4. Since the assessee has raised legal question on usurpation of jurisdiction b y the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the completed assessment in the instant case, it would be pertinent to deal with the aforesaid question at the outset.ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween
T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 3 -
5. The learned AR for the assessee at the outset submitted that the AO has wrongl y assumed the jurisdiction for making reassessment b y issuing notice under s.148 of the Act without authorit y of law. The Ld.AR submitted that the ingredients of section 147/148 are not fulfilled in the instant case to enable the AO to exercise jurisdiction and to proceed with re-assessment proceedings. The learned AR further submitted that the assessment has been reopened without meeting the requirements of first proviso to section 147 of the Act. The learned AR next submitted that the assessment for AY 2010-11 was earlier completed under s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23.01.2011 and the notice for reassessment has been issued after four years from the end of the relevant AY 2010-11 on 31.03.2017. Thus, the AO was entitled to exercise jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act only upon fulfillment of additional conditions imposed under first proviso to section 147 of the Act. It was alleged that the AO has issued the notice under s.147/148 of the Act without meeting these requirements of first proviso to section 147 of the Act. It was further contended that the original assessment was made after proper enquiry on deductibilit y of TDS under s.194C of the Act and other provisions of the Act and the original assessment was passed after proper verification of TDS, reconciliation of assessment and proof regarding payment of tax/TDS certificate in relation to various expenses. The material alread y placed before the AO was later reviewed b y the Audit Part y/AO and based on such review of material alread y available in the file of the AO, the AO proceeded to invoke provisions of section 147 of the Act. The learned AR for the assessee also referred to the reasons recorded and contended that there is no allegation on the part of the AO that the assessee has failed to disclose an y material fact full y and trul y at the time of original assessment and therefore the action of reopening is without an y legall y sound basis for invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act. It was further alleged that the action of the AO is nothing but change of opinion on the same issue based on review of material alread y placed on record which is not permissible in law. It was thus alleged that the act of the AO in reopening the completed assessment after four years from the end of the assessment year is neither sustainable under main provisions of ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 4 -
Section 147 of the Act nor on account of stringent embargo placed upon the AO under first proviso thereto. The learned AR also submitted that it is not discernible from the record as to what material facts were not disclosed full y and trul y which has resulted in alleged escapement of income. It was thus contended that the AO has wrongfull y assumed the jurisdiction vested under s.147 of the Act without meeting legal requirements. On merits, the learned AR for the assessee referred to the written submissions made before the CIT(A) as reproduced in para 5 of appellate order and pointed out that the requirements of Chapter XVII towards vicarious liabilit y placed upon the assessee has been dul y complied with and the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for disallowance of expenses are not attracted.
6. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the action of the AO on the issue of validit y of usurption of jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee has incurred staggering amount of expenses pegged at Rs.2,19,94,327/- on account of loading charges/unloading charges and labour expenses. The assessee has neither deducted TDS under s.194C of the Act on such payments nor filed an y evidence as obligated under the provisions codified in Chapter XVII-B of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO has correctl y reopened the assessment in accordance with law after taking necessary approvals of the superior authorit y contemplated under s.151 of the Act. It was thus pleaded that no interference with the order of the C IT(A) is called for on the legal ground raised b y the assessee at this belated stage and not objected to before the C IT(A).
7. The legal issue on validit y of assumption of jurisdiction under s.147/148 is dealt with hereunder.
7.1. The reasons recorded under s.148(2) giving cause for issuance of notice under s.148 is pertinent to determine the jurisdictional issue. Accordingl y, the reasons so recorded b y the AO for reopening the completed assessment is reproduced hereunder:-
ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (NaweenT r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 5 -
"In the P&L a/c, assessee has debited expense of Rs.1,40,59,105/- under the head 'Loading charges, Rs .63,82,446/- under the head unloading charges and Rs.15,52,776/- under the head of Labour expenses. The assessee has neither deducted TDS u/s 194C nor filed any details in respect of these expense which comes to Rs.2,19,94,327/- 14059105 + 6382446 + 1552776] , which attracts the provision of section 40a(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Al so in column 27(a) of Form No.3CD the auditor has mentioned deduction of tax at source regarding the payment thereof to the credit of Central Govt. under provision of chapter XVII-B but the evidence was not avai lable.
Further, assessee has done contractual work at VISA Steel Ltd., DVC, CTPS Chandrapura and claimed Rs .1,44,38,977/- under the head 'Transporting charges '. The assessee had made payment above Rs .1 lacs but not filed any detai ls of TDS made on these payments.
Therefore, I have reason to believe that an amount of Rs.3,64,33,304/- [ 2,19,94,327 + 14438977] escaped income for which action as per 147/148 is to be initiated."
7.2. Before we look into the reasons so recorded, it will be pertinent to notice that the instant case pertains to AY 2011-12 where the assessment order was earlier framed under s.143(3) vide order dated 23/01/2011. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee and can also be seen from the assessment order itself specific inquiry about deduction of TDS on expenses was made and the assessment was framed thereupon. Thus, as per the assessment order itself, an inquiry was made on deduction of TDS. The assessment was thereafter framed wherein no disallowance was made in consequence of aforesaid inquiry.
7.3. Subsequentl y, a notice under s.148 of the Act has been issued after approval of the Pr.CIT under s.151 of the Act on 30.03.2017 making out a case of purported infringement of section 194C of the Act ostensibl y on review of existing records. In consequence of relook at records, the AO appears to have recorded reason for re-opening the completed assessment after four years from the end of the relevant AY 2010-11 as noted in earlier paras.
7.4 In the background of aforesaid facts, we now take notice of the reasons recorded as reproduced earlier. A bare perusal of the reasons recorded suggests that the AO has propelled himself to reopen the ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 6 -
assessment for the simple reason that the assessee is found to have not complied with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Act including Section 194C of the Act thereunder. We do not find an y reference to the assessment made under s.143(3) of the Act earlier in the reasons so recorded. We also do not find an y allegation in the reasons recorded against the assessee that income has escaped assessment owing to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts full y and trul y at the time of assessment. It is not discernible from the reasons recorded as to how the enquiry made on the very issue at the time of the original assessment suffered from error and was unsustainable on facts and law. It is well settled that mere review of existing facts b y the same authorit y later to come to a different conclusion and thereb y reopening the completed assessment is not permissible in law. Notabl y, section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not plenary in nature and is subject to certain exceptions and also have been matter of legal interpretation from time-to- time. Therefore, where the issue in controvers y has been subject matter of specific examination and acceptance, a logical inference would be that an opinion on the issue was framed by statutory authorit y whereb y disallowance under s.40(a)(ia) of the Act was not found attracted. Needless to say, reopening of a completed assessment under s.143(3) of the Act is not permissible on a mere change of opinion on the same issue examined earlier. Therefore, it is difficult to agree that the AO has passed the stringent test laid down in main provision and first proviso thereto for conferment of power under s.147 of the Act. Section 147 of the Act is a substantive provision granting jurisdiction to reopen completed assessment and therefore conditions stipulated therein are strictl y required to be adhered. Section 147 of the Act is structured with inbuilt safeguards. The AO is not permitted to exercise the power under s.147 of the Act arbitraril y or mechanically.
7.5 In the instant case, we find that the action under s.147 of the Act was sought to be taken in respect of assessment completed under s.143(3) of the Act earlier after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year alleging escapement of income from taxation.
ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (NaweenT r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 7 -
Therefore, the action of the AO is also required to be tested on the touchstone of embargo placed b y the first proviso to section 147 of the Act. The first proviso to section 147 of the Act places additional restrictions on the AO for usurption of jurisdiction. As per the proviso, the escapement of chargeable income should be b y reasons of the failure on the part of the assessee to inter-alia disclose full y and trul y all material facts necessary for assessment of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. We do not find an ything in the reasons recorded which goes to demonstrate that the assessee has failed to disclose an y material fact relevant for assessment in the original proceedings. As a matter of fact, there is no allegation of the AO on this score in the reasons recorded as noted above. We do not find an ything on record to show as to what material facts remained to be disclosed b y the assessee in the original assessment proceedings. Significantl y, the re-assessment order passed under s.147 of the Act also does not portray an y concern of the AO on this aspect. Ostensibl y, in the absence of an express allegation as a starting point, the conditions stipulated under first proviso under s.147 of the Act are not complied with. In this event, where embargo placed b y the first proviso could not be overcome, the legitimacy of notice issued under the provisions of section 147 of the Act is vitiated. It is also the categorical case of assessee that TDS obligations under s.194C of the Act were dul y met and challans for payments were also placed before lower authorities. The entire reassessment proceedings, thus, is without jurisdiction and liable to annulled. The consequent re-assessment order is also therefore liable to be struck down and cancelled as bad in law. We do so accordingl y.
7.6 At this stage, it will also be relevant to take note of the objection on behalf of the Revenue that challenge to jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act has been raised for the first time before the Tribunal. In this regard, we observe that it is well settled that the question of lack of jurisdiction is pure question of law capable of being adjudged on be basis of material on record. There is no estoppel available to the Revenue on the ground that assessee did not raise the question of jurisdiction before the lower ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 8 -
authorities. Estoppel cannot give jurisdiction over a matter which is otherwise lacking. If an authorit y is found to have no jurisdiction to invoke reopening of a completed assessment, the consent or waiver can never give the jurisdiction to the authorit y concerned. Such view has been expressed J. S. Parker 94 ITR 616 (Guj) & P. V. Doshi vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Guj).
7.7 In view of our above findings that the issuance of notice under s.147/148 of the Act is void ab initio and accordingl y reassessment order is without jurisdiction and therefore illegal, we do not consider it expedient to deal with the merits of the factual aspects of the case.
8. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 20/01/2020 Sd/- Sd/-
(MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ranchi: Dated 20/01/2020
True Copy
S. K. SINHA
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. राज व / Revenue
2. आवेदक / Assessee
3. संबं*धत आयकर आय,
ु त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आय,
ु त- अपील / CIT (A)
5. 0वभागीय 3त3न*ध, आयकर अपील य अ*धकरण, रांची /
DR, ITAT, Ranchi
6. गाड8 फाइल / Guard file.
B y o r d er ,
Sr . P r i va te Secr et ar y
I T AT , Ah med ab ad
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"RANCHI" BENCH, RANCHI
BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 56/Ran/2018 ( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Naween Transport बनाम/ ACIT Company Vs. Circle -2, Hazaribagh Jaridih Bazar, Bermo, Bokaro - 829114 थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AADFN9613K (अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent) अपीलाथ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri D. C. Agarwal, Advocate यथ क ओर से / Shri Inderjeet Singh, Sr. CIT (DR) Respondent by :
सन ु वाई क तार ख / Date of 06/11/2019 Hearing घोषणा क तार ख /Date of 20/01/2020 Pronouncement आदे श/O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hazaribagh (C IT(A)' in short), dated 13.02.2018 arising in the assessment order dated 14.11.2017 passed b y the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 147/143(3) of the In come Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2010-
11. ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween
T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 2 -
2. The grounds of appeal raised b y the assessee read as under:
"1. For that the order of the learned Commiss ioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) is illegal, excessive and beyond the facts and circumstances of the case and as such is not maintainable.
2. For that on perusal of the order, it appears that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) has disallowed the appeal only on the basis that the evidence provided was new although he has failed to mention that the evidences were already produced before the assessing officer at the time of original assessment done u/s 143(3) on 23/01/2012.
3. For that the learned CIT (A) has completel y ignored the fact that TDS was duly deducted and paid and pr oof of the same was submitted with hi m.
4. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) ought to have considered the merits of the case and should not have focused on technical issues. The appellant i s being penalized for technical issues rather than any escapement of income.
5. For that the lear ned CIT (A) ought to have considered that before the service of the notice the order was passed by the learned assessing officer and he ought to have looked into the evidences produced before him because the learned assessing officer had passed his order in haste.
6. For that the reopening of the case u/s 14-Twas bad in law especially in view of the fact that the original order u/s 143(3) had already covered the point of TDS deducted and deposited u/s 194C.
7. For that the CIT (A) has erred in not considering the fact that column 27 (a) of Form 3CD of the audit report specifically mentions that TDS provision has been proper ly complied.
8. For that the confirmation of addition at Rs. 3,51,98,334/- is illegal, and beyond all canon of justice."
3. The assessee in the instant case has challenged the action of the AO both on merits as well as on the point of unlawful usurpation of jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act.
4. Since the assessee has raised legal question on usurpation of jurisdiction b y the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the completed assessment in the instant case, it would be pertinent to deal with the aforesaid question at the outset.ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween
T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 3 -
5. The learned AR for the assessee at the outset submitted that the AO has wrongl y assumed the jurisdiction for making reassessment b y issuing notice under s.148 of the Act without authorit y of law. The Ld.AR submitted that the ingredients of section 147/148 are not fulfilled in the instant case to enable the AO to exercise jurisdiction and to proceed with re-assessment proceedings. The learned AR further submitted that the assessment has been reopened without meeting the requirements of first proviso to section 147 of the Act. The learned AR next submitted that the assessment for AY 2010-11 was earlier completed under s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23.01.2011 and the notice for reassessment has been issued after four years from the end of the relevant AY 2010-11 on 31.03.2017. Thus, the AO was entitled to exercise jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act only upon fulfillment of additional conditions imposed under first proviso to section 147 of the Act. It was alleged that the AO has issued the notice under s.147/148 of the Act without meeting these requirements of first proviso to section 147 of the Act. It was further contended that the original assessment was made after proper enquiry on deductibilit y of TDS under s.194C of the Act and other provisions of the Act and the original assessment was passed after proper verification of TDS, reconciliation of assessment and proof regarding payment of tax/TDS certificate in relation to various expenses. The material alread y placed before the AO was later reviewed b y the Audit Part y/AO and based on such review of material alread y available in the file of the AO, the AO proceeded to invoke provisions of section 147 of the Act. The learned AR for the assessee also referred to the reasons recorded and contended that there is no allegation on the part of the AO that the assessee has failed to disclose an y material fact full y and trul y at the time of original assessment and therefore the action of reopening is without an y legall y sound basis for invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act. It was further alleged that the action of the AO is nothing but change of opinion on the same issue based on review of material alread y placed on record which is not permissible in law. It was thus alleged that the act of the AO in reopening the completed assessment after four years from the end of the assessment year is neither sustainable under main provisions of ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 4 -
Section 147 of the Act nor on account of stringent embargo placed upon the AO under first proviso thereto. The learned AR also submitted that it is not discernible from the record as to what material facts were not disclosed full y and trul y which has resulted in alleged escapement of income. It was thus contended that the AO has wrongfull y assumed the jurisdiction vested under s.147 of the Act without meeting legal requirements. On merits, the learned AR for the assessee referred to the written submissions made before the CIT(A) as reproduced in para 5 of appellate order and pointed out that the requirements of Chapter XVII towards vicarious liabilit y placed upon the assessee has been dul y complied with and the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for disallowance of expenses are not attracted.
6. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the action of the AO on the issue of validit y of usurption of jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee has incurred staggering amount of expenses pegged at Rs.2,19,94,327/- on account of loading charges/unloading charges and labour expenses. The assessee has neither deducted TDS under s.194C of the Act on such payments nor filed an y evidence as obligated under the provisions codified in Chapter XVII-B of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO has correctl y reopened the assessment in accordance with law after taking necessary approvals of the superior authorit y contemplated under s.151 of the Act. It was thus pleaded that no interference with the order of the C IT(A) is called for on the legal ground raised b y the assessee at this belated stage and not objected to before the C IT(A).
7. The legal issue on validit y of assumption of jurisdiction under s.147/148 is dealt with hereunder.
7.1. The reasons recorded under s.148(2) giving cause for issuance of notice under s.148 is pertinent to determine the jurisdictional issue. Accordingl y, the reasons so recorded b y the AO for reopening the completed assessment is reproduced hereunder:-
ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (NaweenT r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 5 -
"In the P&L a/c, assessee has debited expense of Rs.1,40,59,105/- under the head 'Loading charges, Rs .63,82,446/- under the head unloading charges and Rs.15,52,776/- under the head of Labour expenses. The assessee has neither deducted TDS u/s 194C nor filed any details in respect of these expense which comes to Rs.2,19,94,327/- 14059105 + 6382446 + 1552776] , which attracts the provision of section 40a(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Al so in column 27(a) of Form No.3CD the auditor has mentioned deduction of tax at source regarding the payment thereof to the credit of Central Govt. under provision of chapter XVII-B but the evidence was not avai lable.
Further, assessee has done contractual work at VISA Steel Ltd., DVC, CTPS Chandrapura and claimed Rs .1,44,38,977/- under the head 'Transporting charges '. The assessee had made payment above Rs .1 lacs but not filed any detai ls of TDS made on these payments.
Therefore, I have reason to believe that an amount of Rs.3,64,33,304/- [ 2,19,94,327 + 14438977] escaped income for which action as per 147/148 is to be initiated."
7.2. Before we look into the reasons so recorded, it will be pertinent to notice that the instant case pertains to AY 2011-12 where the assessment order was earlier framed under s.143(3) vide order dated 23/01/2011. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee and can also be seen from the assessment order itself specific inquiry about deduction of TDS on expenses was made and the assessment was framed thereupon. Thus, as per the assessment order itself, an inquiry was made on deduction of TDS. The assessment was thereafter framed wherein no disallowance was made in consequence of aforesaid inquiry.
7.3. Subsequentl y, a notice under s.148 of the Act has been issued after approval of the Pr.CIT under s.151 of the Act on 30.03.2017 making out a case of purported infringement of section 194C of the Act ostensibl y on review of existing records. In consequence of relook at records, the AO appears to have recorded reason for re-opening the completed assessment after four years from the end of the relevant AY 2010-11 as noted in earlier paras.
7.4 In the background of aforesaid facts, we now take notice of the reasons recorded as reproduced earlier. A bare perusal of the reasons recorded suggests that the AO has propelled himself to reopen the ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 6 -
assessment for the simple reason that the assessee is found to have not complied with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Act including Section 194C of the Act thereunder. We do not find an y reference to the assessment made under s.143(3) of the Act earlier in the reasons so recorded. We also do not find an y allegation in the reasons recorded against the assessee that income has escaped assessment owing to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts full y and trul y at the time of assessment. It is not discernible from the reasons recorded as to how the enquiry made on the very issue at the time of the original assessment suffered from error and was unsustainable on facts and law. It is well settled that mere review of existing facts b y the same authorit y later to come to a different conclusion and thereb y reopening the completed assessment is not permissible in law. Notabl y, section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not plenary in nature and is subject to certain exceptions and also have been matter of legal interpretation from time-to- time. Therefore, where the issue in controvers y has been subject matter of specific examination and acceptance, a logical inference would be that an opinion on the issue was framed by statutory authorit y whereb y disallowance under s.40(a)(ia) of the Act was not found attracted. Needless to say, reopening of a completed assessment under s.143(3) of the Act is not permissible on a mere change of opinion on the same issue examined earlier. Therefore, it is difficult to agree that the AO has passed the stringent test laid down in main provision and first proviso thereto for conferment of power under s.147 of the Act. Section 147 of the Act is a substantive provision granting jurisdiction to reopen completed assessment and therefore conditions stipulated therein are strictl y required to be adhered. Section 147 of the Act is structured with inbuilt safeguards. The AO is not permitted to exercise the power under s.147 of the Act arbitraril y or mechanically.
7.5 In the instant case, we find that the action under s.147 of the Act was sought to be taken in respect of assessment completed under s.143(3) of the Act earlier after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year alleging escapement of income from taxation.
ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (NaweenT r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 7 -
Therefore, the action of the AO is also required to be tested on the touchstone of embargo placed b y the first proviso to section 147 of the Act. The first proviso to section 147 of the Act places additional restrictions on the AO for usurption of jurisdiction. As per the proviso, the escapement of chargeable income should be b y reasons of the failure on the part of the assessee to inter-alia disclose full y and trul y all material facts necessary for assessment of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. We do not find an ything in the reasons recorded which goes to demonstrate that the assessee has failed to disclose an y material fact relevant for assessment in the original proceedings. As a matter of fact, there is no allegation of the AO on this score in the reasons recorded as noted above. We do not find an ything on record to show as to what material facts remained to be disclosed b y the assessee in the original assessment proceedings. Significantl y, the re-assessment order passed under s.147 of the Act also does not portray an y concern of the AO on this aspect. Ostensibl y, in the absence of an express allegation as a starting point, the conditions stipulated under first proviso under s.147 of the Act are not complied with. In this event, where embargo placed b y the first proviso could not be overcome, the legitimacy of notice issued under the provisions of section 147 of the Act is vitiated. It is also the categorical case of assessee that TDS obligations under s.194C of the Act were dul y met and challans for payments were also placed before lower authorities. The entire reassessment proceedings, thus, is without jurisdiction and liable to annulled. The consequent re-assessment order is also therefore liable to be struck down and cancelled as bad in law. We do so accordingl y.
7.6 At this stage, it will also be relevant to take note of the objection on behalf of the Revenue that challenge to jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act has been raised for the first time before the Tribunal. In this regard, we observe that it is well settled that the question of lack of jurisdiction is pure question of law capable of being adjudged on be basis of material on record. There is no estoppel available to the Revenue on the ground that assessee did not raise the question of jurisdiction before the lower ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 8 -
authorities. Estoppel cannot give jurisdiction over a matter which is otherwise lacking. If an authorit y is found to have no jurisdiction to invoke reopening of a completed assessment, the consent or waiver can never give the jurisdiction to the authorit y concerned. Such view has been expressed J. S. Parker 94 ITR 616 (Guj) & P. V. Doshi vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Guj).
7.7 In view of our above findings that the issuance of notice under s.147/148 of the Act is void ab initio and accordingl y reassessment order is without jurisdiction and therefore illegal, we do not consider it expedient to deal with the merits of the factual aspects of the case.
8. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 20/01/2020 Sd/- Sd/-
(MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ranchi: Dated 20/01/2020
True Copy
S. K. SINHA
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. राज व / Revenue
2. आवेदक / Assessee
3. संबं*धत आयकर आय,
ु त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आय,
ु त- अपील / CIT (A)
5. 0वभागीय 3त3न*ध, आयकर अपील य अ*धकरण, रांची /
DR, ITAT, Ranchi
6. गाड8 फाइल / Guard file.
B y o r d er ,
Sr . P r i va te Secr et ar y
I T AT , Ah med ab ad
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"RANCHI" BENCH, RANCHI
BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 56/Ran/2018 ( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Naween Transport बनाम/ ACIT Company Vs. Circle -2, Hazaribagh Jaridih Bazar, Bermo, Bokaro - 829114 थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AADFN9613K (अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent) अपीलाथ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri D. C. Agarwal, Advocate यथ क ओर से / Shri Inderjeet Singh, Sr. CIT (DR) Respondent by :
सन ु वाई क तार ख / Date of 06/11/2019 Hearing घोषणा क तार ख /Date of 20/01/2020 Pronouncement आदे श/O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hazaribagh (C IT(A)' in short), dated 13.02.2018 arising in the assessment order dated 14.11.2017 passed b y the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 147/143(3) of the In come Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2010-
11. ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween
T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 2 -
2. The grounds of appeal raised b y the assessee read as under:
"1. For that the order of the learned Commiss ioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) is illegal, excessive and beyond the facts and circumstances of the case and as such is not maintainable.
2. For that on perusal of the order, it appears that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) has disallowed the appeal only on the basis that the evidence provided was new although he has failed to mention that the evidences were already produced before the assessing officer at the time of original assessment done u/s 143(3) on 23/01/2012.
3. For that the learned CIT (A) has completel y ignored the fact that TDS was duly deducted and paid and pr oof of the same was submitted with hi m.
4. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) ought to have considered the merits of the case and should not have focused on technical issues. The appellant i s being penalized for technical issues rather than any escapement of income.
5. For that the lear ned CIT (A) ought to have considered that before the service of the notice the order was passed by the learned assessing officer and he ought to have looked into the evidences produced before him because the learned assessing officer had passed his order in haste.
6. For that the reopening of the case u/s 14-Twas bad in law especially in view of the fact that the original order u/s 143(3) had already covered the point of TDS deducted and deposited u/s 194C.
7. For that the CIT (A) has erred in not considering the fact that column 27 (a) of Form 3CD of the audit report specifically mentions that TDS provision has been proper ly complied.
8. For that the confirmation of addition at Rs. 3,51,98,334/- is illegal, and beyond all canon of justice."
3. The assessee in the instant case has challenged the action of the AO both on merits as well as on the point of unlawful usurpation of jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act.
4. Since the assessee has raised legal question on usurpation of jurisdiction b y the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the completed assessment in the instant case, it would be pertinent to deal with the aforesaid question at the outset.ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween
T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 3 -
5. The learned AR for the assessee at the outset submitted that the AO has wrongl y assumed the jurisdiction for making reassessment b y issuing notice under s.148 of the Act without authorit y of law. The Ld.AR submitted that the ingredients of section 147/148 are not fulfilled in the instant case to enable the AO to exercise jurisdiction and to proceed with re-assessment proceedings. The learned AR further submitted that the assessment has been reopened without meeting the requirements of first proviso to section 147 of the Act. The learned AR next submitted that the assessment for AY 2010-11 was earlier completed under s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23.01.2011 and the notice for reassessment has been issued after four years from the end of the relevant AY 2010-11 on 31.03.2017. Thus, the AO was entitled to exercise jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act only upon fulfillment of additional conditions imposed under first proviso to section 147 of the Act. It was alleged that the AO has issued the notice under s.147/148 of the Act without meeting these requirements of first proviso to section 147 of the Act. It was further contended that the original assessment was made after proper enquiry on deductibilit y of TDS under s.194C of the Act and other provisions of the Act and the original assessment was passed after proper verification of TDS, reconciliation of assessment and proof regarding payment of tax/TDS certificate in relation to various expenses. The material alread y placed before the AO was later reviewed b y the Audit Part y/AO and based on such review of material alread y available in the file of the AO, the AO proceeded to invoke provisions of section 147 of the Act. The learned AR for the assessee also referred to the reasons recorded and contended that there is no allegation on the part of the AO that the assessee has failed to disclose an y material fact full y and trul y at the time of original assessment and therefore the action of reopening is without an y legall y sound basis for invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act. It was further alleged that the action of the AO is nothing but change of opinion on the same issue based on review of material alread y placed on record which is not permissible in law. It was thus alleged that the act of the AO in reopening the completed assessment after four years from the end of the assessment year is neither sustainable under main provisions of ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 4 -
Section 147 of the Act nor on account of stringent embargo placed upon the AO under first proviso thereto. The learned AR also submitted that it is not discernible from the record as to what material facts were not disclosed full y and trul y which has resulted in alleged escapement of income. It was thus contended that the AO has wrongfull y assumed the jurisdiction vested under s.147 of the Act without meeting legal requirements. On merits, the learned AR for the assessee referred to the written submissions made before the CIT(A) as reproduced in para 5 of appellate order and pointed out that the requirements of Chapter XVII towards vicarious liabilit y placed upon the assessee has been dul y complied with and the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for disallowance of expenses are not attracted.
6. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the action of the AO on the issue of validit y of usurption of jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee has incurred staggering amount of expenses pegged at Rs.2,19,94,327/- on account of loading charges/unloading charges and labour expenses. The assessee has neither deducted TDS under s.194C of the Act on such payments nor filed an y evidence as obligated under the provisions codified in Chapter XVII-B of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO has correctl y reopened the assessment in accordance with law after taking necessary approvals of the superior authorit y contemplated under s.151 of the Act. It was thus pleaded that no interference with the order of the C IT(A) is called for on the legal ground raised b y the assessee at this belated stage and not objected to before the C IT(A).
7. The legal issue on validit y of assumption of jurisdiction under s.147/148 is dealt with hereunder.
7.1. The reasons recorded under s.148(2) giving cause for issuance of notice under s.148 is pertinent to determine the jurisdictional issue. Accordingl y, the reasons so recorded b y the AO for reopening the completed assessment is reproduced hereunder:-
ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (NaweenT r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 5 -
"In the P&L a/c, assessee has debited expense of Rs.1,40,59,105/- under the head 'Loading charges, Rs .63,82,446/- under the head unloading charges and Rs.15,52,776/- under the head of Labour expenses. The assessee has neither deducted TDS u/s 194C nor filed any details in respect of these expense which comes to Rs.2,19,94,327/- 14059105 + 6382446 + 1552776] , which attracts the provision of section 40a(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Al so in column 27(a) of Form No.3CD the auditor has mentioned deduction of tax at source regarding the payment thereof to the credit of Central Govt. under provision of chapter XVII-B but the evidence was not avai lable.
Further, assessee has done contractual work at VISA Steel Ltd., DVC, CTPS Chandrapura and claimed Rs .1,44,38,977/- under the head 'Transporting charges '. The assessee had made payment above Rs .1 lacs but not filed any detai ls of TDS made on these payments.
Therefore, I have reason to believe that an amount of Rs.3,64,33,304/- [ 2,19,94,327 + 14438977] escaped income for which action as per 147/148 is to be initiated."
7.2. Before we look into the reasons so recorded, it will be pertinent to notice that the instant case pertains to AY 2011-12 where the assessment order was earlier framed under s.143(3) vide order dated 23/01/2011. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee and can also be seen from the assessment order itself specific inquiry about deduction of TDS on expenses was made and the assessment was framed thereupon. Thus, as per the assessment order itself, an inquiry was made on deduction of TDS. The assessment was thereafter framed wherein no disallowance was made in consequence of aforesaid inquiry.
7.3. Subsequentl y, a notice under s.148 of the Act has been issued after approval of the Pr.CIT under s.151 of the Act on 30.03.2017 making out a case of purported infringement of section 194C of the Act ostensibl y on review of existing records. In consequence of relook at records, the AO appears to have recorded reason for re-opening the completed assessment after four years from the end of the relevant AY 2010-11 as noted in earlier paras.
7.4 In the background of aforesaid facts, we now take notice of the reasons recorded as reproduced earlier. A bare perusal of the reasons recorded suggests that the AO has propelled himself to reopen the ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 6 -
assessment for the simple reason that the assessee is found to have not complied with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Act including Section 194C of the Act thereunder. We do not find an y reference to the assessment made under s.143(3) of the Act earlier in the reasons so recorded. We also do not find an y allegation in the reasons recorded against the assessee that income has escaped assessment owing to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts full y and trul y at the time of assessment. It is not discernible from the reasons recorded as to how the enquiry made on the very issue at the time of the original assessment suffered from error and was unsustainable on facts and law. It is well settled that mere review of existing facts b y the same authorit y later to come to a different conclusion and thereb y reopening the completed assessment is not permissible in law. Notabl y, section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not plenary in nature and is subject to certain exceptions and also have been matter of legal interpretation from time-to- time. Therefore, where the issue in controvers y has been subject matter of specific examination and acceptance, a logical inference would be that an opinion on the issue was framed by statutory authorit y whereb y disallowance under s.40(a)(ia) of the Act was not found attracted. Needless to say, reopening of a completed assessment under s.143(3) of the Act is not permissible on a mere change of opinion on the same issue examined earlier. Therefore, it is difficult to agree that the AO has passed the stringent test laid down in main provision and first proviso thereto for conferment of power under s.147 of the Act. Section 147 of the Act is a substantive provision granting jurisdiction to reopen completed assessment and therefore conditions stipulated therein are strictl y required to be adhered. Section 147 of the Act is structured with inbuilt safeguards. The AO is not permitted to exercise the power under s.147 of the Act arbitraril y or mechanically.
7.5 In the instant case, we find that the action under s.147 of the Act was sought to be taken in respect of assessment completed under s.143(3) of the Act earlier after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year alleging escapement of income from taxation.
ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (NaweenT r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 7 -
Therefore, the action of the AO is also required to be tested on the touchstone of embargo placed b y the first proviso to section 147 of the Act. The first proviso to section 147 of the Act places additional restrictions on the AO for usurption of jurisdiction. As per the proviso, the escapement of chargeable income should be b y reasons of the failure on the part of the assessee to inter-alia disclose full y and trul y all material facts necessary for assessment of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. We do not find an ything in the reasons recorded which goes to demonstrate that the assessee has failed to disclose an y material fact relevant for assessment in the original proceedings. As a matter of fact, there is no allegation of the AO on this score in the reasons recorded as noted above. We do not find an ything on record to show as to what material facts remained to be disclosed b y the assessee in the original assessment proceedings. Significantl y, the re-assessment order passed under s.147 of the Act also does not portray an y concern of the AO on this aspect. Ostensibl y, in the absence of an express allegation as a starting point, the conditions stipulated under first proviso under s.147 of the Act are not complied with. In this event, where embargo placed b y the first proviso could not be overcome, the legitimacy of notice issued under the provisions of section 147 of the Act is vitiated. It is also the categorical case of assessee that TDS obligations under s.194C of the Act were dul y met and challans for payments were also placed before lower authorities. The entire reassessment proceedings, thus, is without jurisdiction and liable to annulled. The consequent re-assessment order is also therefore liable to be struck down and cancelled as bad in law. We do so accordingl y.
7.6 At this stage, it will also be relevant to take note of the objection on behalf of the Revenue that challenge to jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act has been raised for the first time before the Tribunal. In this regard, we observe that it is well settled that the question of lack of jurisdiction is pure question of law capable of being adjudged on be basis of material on record. There is no estoppel available to the Revenue on the ground that assessee did not raise the question of jurisdiction before the lower ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 8 -
authorities. Estoppel cannot give jurisdiction over a matter which is otherwise lacking. If an authorit y is found to have no jurisdiction to invoke reopening of a completed assessment, the consent or waiver can never give the jurisdiction to the authorit y concerned. Such view has been expressed J. S. Parker 94 ITR 616 (Guj) & P. V. Doshi vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Guj).
7.7 In view of our above findings that the issuance of notice under s.147/148 of the Act is void ab initio and accordingl y reassessment order is without jurisdiction and therefore illegal, we do not consider it expedient to deal with the merits of the factual aspects of the case.
8. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 20/01/2020 Sd/- Sd/-
(MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ranchi: Dated 20/01/2020
True Copy
S. K. SINHA
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. राज व / Revenue
2. आवेदक / Assessee
3. संबं*धत आयकर आय,
ु त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आय,
ु त- अपील / CIT (A)
5. 0वभागीय 3त3न*ध, आयकर अपील य अ*धकरण, रांची /
DR, ITAT, Ranchi
6. गाड8 फाइल / Guard file.
B y o r d er ,
Sr . P r i va te Secr et ar y
I T AT , Ah med ab ad
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"RANCHI" BENCH, RANCHI
BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 56/Ran/2018 ( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Naween Transport बनाम/ ACIT Company Vs. Circle -2, Hazaribagh Jaridih Bazar, Bermo, Bokaro - 829114 थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AADFN9613K (अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent) अपीलाथ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri D. C. Agarwal, Advocate यथ क ओर से / Shri Inderjeet Singh, Sr. CIT (DR) Respondent by :
सन ु वाई क तार ख / Date of 06/11/2019 Hearing घोषणा क तार ख /Date of 20/01/2020 Pronouncement आदे श/O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hazaribagh (C IT(A)' in short), dated 13.02.2018 arising in the assessment order dated 14.11.2017 passed b y the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 147/143(3) of the In come Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2010-
11. ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween
T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 2 -
2. The grounds of appeal raised b y the assessee read as under:
"1. For that the order of the learned Commiss ioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) is illegal, excessive and beyond the facts and circumstances of the case and as such is not maintainable.
2. For that on perusal of the order, it appears that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) has disallowed the appeal only on the basis that the evidence provided was new although he has failed to mention that the evidences were already produced before the assessing officer at the time of original assessment done u/s 143(3) on 23/01/2012.
3. For that the learned CIT (A) has completel y ignored the fact that TDS was duly deducted and paid and pr oof of the same was submitted with hi m.
4. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) ought to have considered the merits of the case and should not have focused on technical issues. The appellant i s being penalized for technical issues rather than any escapement of income.
5. For that the lear ned CIT (A) ought to have considered that before the service of the notice the order was passed by the learned assessing officer and he ought to have looked into the evidences produced before him because the learned assessing officer had passed his order in haste.
6. For that the reopening of the case u/s 14-Twas bad in law especially in view of the fact that the original order u/s 143(3) had already covered the point of TDS deducted and deposited u/s 194C.
7. For that the CIT (A) has erred in not considering the fact that column 27 (a) of Form 3CD of the audit report specifically mentions that TDS provision has been proper ly complied.
8. For that the confirmation of addition at Rs. 3,51,98,334/- is illegal, and beyond all canon of justice."
3. The assessee in the instant case has challenged the action of the AO both on merits as well as on the point of unlawful usurpation of jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act.
4. Since the assessee has raised legal question on usurpation of jurisdiction b y the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the completed assessment in the instant case, it would be pertinent to deal with the aforesaid question at the outset.ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween
T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 3 -
5. The learned AR for the assessee at the outset submitted that the AO has wrongl y assumed the jurisdiction for making reassessment b y issuing notice under s.148 of the Act without authorit y of law. The Ld.AR submitted that the ingredients of section 147/148 are not fulfilled in the instant case to enable the AO to exercise jurisdiction and to proceed with re-assessment proceedings. The learned AR further submitted that the assessment has been reopened without meeting the requirements of first proviso to section 147 of the Act. The learned AR next submitted that the assessment for AY 2010-11 was earlier completed under s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23.01.2011 and the notice for reassessment has been issued after four years from the end of the relevant AY 2010-11 on 31.03.2017. Thus, the AO was entitled to exercise jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act only upon fulfillment of additional conditions imposed under first proviso to section 147 of the Act. It was alleged that the AO has issued the notice under s.147/148 of the Act without meeting these requirements of first proviso to section 147 of the Act. It was further contended that the original assessment was made after proper enquiry on deductibilit y of TDS under s.194C of the Act and other provisions of the Act and the original assessment was passed after proper verification of TDS, reconciliation of assessment and proof regarding payment of tax/TDS certificate in relation to various expenses. The material alread y placed before the AO was later reviewed b y the Audit Part y/AO and based on such review of material alread y available in the file of the AO, the AO proceeded to invoke provisions of section 147 of the Act. The learned AR for the assessee also referred to the reasons recorded and contended that there is no allegation on the part of the AO that the assessee has failed to disclose an y material fact full y and trul y at the time of original assessment and therefore the action of reopening is without an y legall y sound basis for invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act. It was further alleged that the action of the AO is nothing but change of opinion on the same issue based on review of material alread y placed on record which is not permissible in law. It was thus alleged that the act of the AO in reopening the completed assessment after four years from the end of the assessment year is neither sustainable under main provisions of ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 4 -
Section 147 of the Act nor on account of stringent embargo placed upon the AO under first proviso thereto. The learned AR also submitted that it is not discernible from the record as to what material facts were not disclosed full y and trul y which has resulted in alleged escapement of income. It was thus contended that the AO has wrongfull y assumed the jurisdiction vested under s.147 of the Act without meeting legal requirements. On merits, the learned AR for the assessee referred to the written submissions made before the CIT(A) as reproduced in para 5 of appellate order and pointed out that the requirements of Chapter XVII towards vicarious liabilit y placed upon the assessee has been dul y complied with and the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for disallowance of expenses are not attracted.
6. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the action of the AO on the issue of validit y of usurption of jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee has incurred staggering amount of expenses pegged at Rs.2,19,94,327/- on account of loading charges/unloading charges and labour expenses. The assessee has neither deducted TDS under s.194C of the Act on such payments nor filed an y evidence as obligated under the provisions codified in Chapter XVII-B of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO has correctl y reopened the assessment in accordance with law after taking necessary approvals of the superior authorit y contemplated under s.151 of the Act. It was thus pleaded that no interference with the order of the C IT(A) is called for on the legal ground raised b y the assessee at this belated stage and not objected to before the C IT(A).
7. The legal issue on validit y of assumption of jurisdiction under s.147/148 is dealt with hereunder.
7.1. The reasons recorded under s.148(2) giving cause for issuance of notice under s.148 is pertinent to determine the jurisdictional issue. Accordingl y, the reasons so recorded b y the AO for reopening the completed assessment is reproduced hereunder:-
ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (NaweenT r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 5 -
"In the P&L a/c, assessee has debited expense of Rs.1,40,59,105/- under the head 'Loading charges, Rs .63,82,446/- under the head unloading charges and Rs.15,52,776/- under the head of Labour expenses. The assessee has neither deducted TDS u/s 194C nor filed any details in respect of these expense which comes to Rs.2,19,94,327/- 14059105 + 6382446 + 1552776] , which attracts the provision of section 40a(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Al so in column 27(a) of Form No.3CD the auditor has mentioned deduction of tax at source regarding the payment thereof to the credit of Central Govt. under provision of chapter XVII-B but the evidence was not avai lable.
Further, assessee has done contractual work at VISA Steel Ltd., DVC, CTPS Chandrapura and claimed Rs .1,44,38,977/- under the head 'Transporting charges '. The assessee had made payment above Rs .1 lacs but not filed any detai ls of TDS made on these payments.
Therefore, I have reason to believe that an amount of Rs.3,64,33,304/- [ 2,19,94,327 + 14438977] escaped income for which action as per 147/148 is to be initiated."
7.2. Before we look into the reasons so recorded, it will be pertinent to notice that the instant case pertains to AY 2011-12 where the assessment order was earlier framed under s.143(3) vide order dated 23/01/2011. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee and can also be seen from the assessment order itself specific inquiry about deduction of TDS on expenses was made and the assessment was framed thereupon. Thus, as per the assessment order itself, an inquiry was made on deduction of TDS. The assessment was thereafter framed wherein no disallowance was made in consequence of aforesaid inquiry.
7.3. Subsequentl y, a notice under s.148 of the Act has been issued after approval of the Pr.CIT under s.151 of the Act on 30.03.2017 making out a case of purported infringement of section 194C of the Act ostensibl y on review of existing records. In consequence of relook at records, the AO appears to have recorded reason for re-opening the completed assessment after four years from the end of the relevant AY 2010-11 as noted in earlier paras.
7.4 In the background of aforesaid facts, we now take notice of the reasons recorded as reproduced earlier. A bare perusal of the reasons recorded suggests that the AO has propelled himself to reopen the ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 6 -
assessment for the simple reason that the assessee is found to have not complied with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Act including Section 194C of the Act thereunder. We do not find an y reference to the assessment made under s.143(3) of the Act earlier in the reasons so recorded. We also do not find an y allegation in the reasons recorded against the assessee that income has escaped assessment owing to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts full y and trul y at the time of assessment. It is not discernible from the reasons recorded as to how the enquiry made on the very issue at the time of the original assessment suffered from error and was unsustainable on facts and law. It is well settled that mere review of existing facts b y the same authorit y later to come to a different conclusion and thereb y reopening the completed assessment is not permissible in law. Notabl y, section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not plenary in nature and is subject to certain exceptions and also have been matter of legal interpretation from time-to- time. Therefore, where the issue in controvers y has been subject matter of specific examination and acceptance, a logical inference would be that an opinion on the issue was framed by statutory authorit y whereb y disallowance under s.40(a)(ia) of the Act was not found attracted. Needless to say, reopening of a completed assessment under s.143(3) of the Act is not permissible on a mere change of opinion on the same issue examined earlier. Therefore, it is difficult to agree that the AO has passed the stringent test laid down in main provision and first proviso thereto for conferment of power under s.147 of the Act. Section 147 of the Act is a substantive provision granting jurisdiction to reopen completed assessment and therefore conditions stipulated therein are strictl y required to be adhered. Section 147 of the Act is structured with inbuilt safeguards. The AO is not permitted to exercise the power under s.147 of the Act arbitraril y or mechanically.
7.5 In the instant case, we find that the action under s.147 of the Act was sought to be taken in respect of assessment completed under s.143(3) of the Act earlier after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year alleging escapement of income from taxation.
ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (NaweenT r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 7 -
Therefore, the action of the AO is also required to be tested on the touchstone of embargo placed b y the first proviso to section 147 of the Act. The first proviso to section 147 of the Act places additional restrictions on the AO for usurption of jurisdiction. As per the proviso, the escapement of chargeable income should be b y reasons of the failure on the part of the assessee to inter-alia disclose full y and trul y all material facts necessary for assessment of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. We do not find an ything in the reasons recorded which goes to demonstrate that the assessee has failed to disclose an y material fact relevant for assessment in the original proceedings. As a matter of fact, there is no allegation of the AO on this score in the reasons recorded as noted above. We do not find an ything on record to show as to what material facts remained to be disclosed b y the assessee in the original assessment proceedings. Significantl y, the re-assessment order passed under s.147 of the Act also does not portray an y concern of the AO on this aspect. Ostensibl y, in the absence of an express allegation as a starting point, the conditions stipulated under first proviso under s.147 of the Act are not complied with. In this event, where embargo placed b y the first proviso could not be overcome, the legitimacy of notice issued under the provisions of section 147 of the Act is vitiated. It is also the categorical case of assessee that TDS obligations under s.194C of the Act were dul y met and challans for payments were also placed before lower authorities. The entire reassessment proceedings, thus, is without jurisdiction and liable to annulled. The consequent re-assessment order is also therefore liable to be struck down and cancelled as bad in law. We do so accordingl y.
7.6 At this stage, it will also be relevant to take note of the objection on behalf of the Revenue that challenge to jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act has been raised for the first time before the Tribunal. In this regard, we observe that it is well settled that the question of lack of jurisdiction is pure question of law capable of being adjudged on be basis of material on record. There is no estoppel available to the Revenue on the ground that assessee did not raise the question of jurisdiction before the lower ITA No. 56/Ran/18 (Naween T r a n s p o r t C o m p a n y v s . AC I T ] A Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 - 8 -
authorities. Estoppel cannot give jurisdiction over a matter which is otherwise lacking. If an authorit y is found to have no jurisdiction to invoke reopening of a completed assessment, the consent or waiver can never give the jurisdiction to the authorit y concerned. Such view has been expressed J. S. Parker 94 ITR 616 (Guj) & P. V. Doshi vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Guj).
7.7 In view of our above findings that the issuance of notice under s.147/148 of the Act is void ab initio and accordingl y reassessment order is without jurisdiction and therefore illegal, we do not consider it expedient to deal with the merits of the factual aspects of the case.
8. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 20/01/2020 Sd/- Sd/-
(MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ranchi: Dated 20/01/2020
True Copy
S. K. SINHA
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. राज व / Revenue
2. आवेदक / Assessee
3. संबं*धत आयकर आय,
ु त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आय,
ु त- अपील / CIT (A)
5. 0वभागीय 3त3न*ध, आयकर अपील य अ*धकरण, रांची /
DR, ITAT, Ranchi
6. गाड8 फाइल / Guard file.
B y o r d er ,
Sr . P r i va te Secr et ar y
I T AT , Ah med ab ad