Cwp/716/2018 Of Jagroop Singh v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, And Another

CWP-716-2018 (O&M)CWP-37279-2018 (O&M) a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 25.9.2019 CWP-716-2018 (O&M) Jagroop Singh ...... Petitioner 2#.(3( Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, and another eee RESPONdents CW P-37279-2018 (O&M Jasbir Kaur ..... Petitioner 2#.(3( Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,--2, Ludhiana and another eee RESPONdents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK HARNARESH SINGH GILL === Present :Mr. S.K.Mukhi, Advocatefor the petitioner.for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for|Mr. Chetan Sood, Advocatefor the respondent. === AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1.This order shall dispose of abovesaid two petitions ascommon questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts are being extracted fromCWP-7 16-2018 2 This petition has been filed against the order dated 22.3.2017 CWP-716-2018 (O&M)CWP-37279-2018 (O&M) under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’)passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Ludhiana, 3The precise ground taken by the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that the petitioner was earlier residing at ward No 3, ModelTown, Doraha, Punjab up till the year 2011. Thereafter, he shifted to alhouse near Aarjoo Hospital, College Road, VPO Karamsar, Rara Sahib,District Ludhiana, Punjab. 4In the financial year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer receivedsome information regarding cash deposit in the bank account of thepetitioner and issued him notice under Section 147of the Act. As per thepetitioner, since he had shifted his address, he had never received thatnotice. After about one year i.e. on 19.3.2015 ex-parte assessment orderwas passed. On 4.6.2015, the Assessing Officer issued him a show causenotice for penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Interestingly, onthis occasion the Assessing Officer sent notice at the new address of thepetitioner and it is only then, as per the petitioner that he came to knowabout the entire issue and this is the precise ground on which thepetitioner has been agitating before the various authorities. 5Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that firstly,there was no evidence with the Assessing officer that the petitioner hadevaded the service of the notice and rather the transmission of the secondshow cause notice (dated 4.6.2015) to the new address clearly shows thatthe Assessing Officer was himself aware that the address of the petitionerhad changed and that is why, he had sent the notice at the new address.The only prayer made in the petition is that the petitioner should be heardbefore assessment order passed and any subsequent penalty proceedings CWP-716-2018 (O&M)CWP-37279-2018 (O&M) etc. are taken against him. | 6 Counsel for the respondent has argued that the case wastaken up when the information was received from the bank of thepetitioner about the cash deposit and registered notice acknowledgmentdue was sent to him at the address mentioned in the Bank account. Thatnotice was never returned with the endorsement that the petitioner is notliving at the address. As per him, after the assessment and penalty, whenthe recovery was to be made then the new address was traced out on fieldVISIts. CWP-716-2018 (O&M)CWP-37279-2018 (O&M) etc. are taken against him. | 6 Counsel for the respondent has argued that the case wastaken up when the information was received from the bank of thepetitioner about the cash deposit and registered notice acknowledgmentdue was sent to him at the address mentioned in the Bank account. Thatnotice was never returned with the endorsement that the petitioner is notliving at the address. As per him, after the assessment and penalty, whenthe recovery was to be made then the new address was traced out on fieldVISIts. TiIn our considered opinion, though no fault can be found withthe initial process initiated by the Income Tax authorities (in sendingnotice by registered post acknowledgment due at the address reflecting inthe bank account) yet it did come to their knowledge that the petitionerhad shifted his address. Not only that, against the penalty order thepetitioner had filed an appeal and the Tribunal accepted these facts asgiving rise to reasonable cause and set aside the penalty proceedings andthat order was never challenged. It is the further case of the petitioner thatactually no tax is exigible on this entire transaction because it arose fromthe sale of agricultural rural land and within a few days, the petitioner hadpurchased similar agricultural land. 8.Keeping in view the entire conspectus of facts, we deem itappropriate to direct the Revenue to re-examine the issue regarding theexigibility of tax and, to this end, we set aside the assessment order. QOParties through counsel are informed that the petitioner shallnow appear before the Assessing Officer on 23.10.2019 to justify hisclaim that the transaction is not exigible to tax. CWP-716-2018 (O&M)CWP-37279-2018 (O&M) 10.Petitions stand disposed of, 1],Since the main cases have been disposed of, pending application if any, also stands disposed of, (AJAY TEWARIT)JUDGE 25.9.2019!)3.!81! (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned2Yes/NoWhether reportable2Yes/No