Ita/124/2009 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri.mohd.hameed Khan

ITA No.124/2009 14/10/2014. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for theappellant. Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counselfor the respondents. They are heard on I.A. No.1667/2014 anapplication filed for condoning the delay of 27 daysin filing of this appeal. Keeping in view the reasons indicated inthe application, the same is allowed. Delay infiling of the appeal is condoned. Learned counsel for the parties areheard on the question of admission of this appeal. During the course of hearing of theappeal, learned counsel for the appellant arguedthat the substantial question of law framed asquestion No.1 in page 7 of the memorandum ofappeal only, arises for consideration in thisappeal. The respondent assessee was working inthe Municipal Corporation, Bhopal as a PublicRelation Officer and was deriving income fromsalary. The Economic Offences Wing of the StateGovernment conducted a search operation in hisresidence and office and certain cash andornaments were received. Based on the same,proceedings under Section 148 were initiatedagainst him for the assessment year 2001-2002and 2002-2003 and thereafter, the orders of assessment were passed. However, subsequentlythereof, on account of there being some incomewhich is said to have escaped assessment, it seemsthat a notice was issued for re-opening of theassessment under Section 143(3). Subsequently,assessments were also made. On appeals beingfiled before the Commissioner, Appeal and theTribunal, even though the Appellate Authoritiesfound that there is delay in initiating theproceedings under Section 143(3), but theauthorities went into the merits of the matter andinterfered into the assessment made by holdingthat certain amount has been added which is notpermissible. Challenging the concurrent orderspassed by the Appellate Authorities, this appealhas been filed and as indicated herein above theonly substantial question is with regard to thequestion of delay in issuing notice under Section143(3). It is argued by learned counsel that thelimitation has to be reckoned from the date ofissuance of the notice under Section 148 i.e.1.11.2004 and not with effect from the date whenthe assessment was completed under Section143(3). Be it as it may be, on going through theorder passed by the Appellate Tribunal AnnexureA/3 we find that after taking note of the aforesaidaspect of the matter, the Appellate Tribunal has mrs.mishra gone into the merits of the matter and from para 6onwards after discussing the issue on merit hasfound that the learned Appellate Commissioner hasnot committed any error in interfering with theorder of assessment and deleting certain additionsmade by the Assessing Officer to the tune ofRs.1,05,456/- for the assessment year 2001-2002and Rs.1,01,648/- for the assessment year 2002-2003. That being so, even if the question of lawframed arises for consideration in the matter, thefact remains that ignoring the question oflimitation, the learned Tribunal has gone into themerits of the matter and interfered with the orderof assessment and nothing is brought on record tohold that this finding recorded on merit isunsustainable. That being so, we see no reason tointerfere as no prejudice is caused to the Revenueas on the merit,also the Appellate Authoritieshave found that the Assessment Order to beunsustainable. Accordingly, finding no ground, thisappeal is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) (Sanjay Yadav) Judge Judge