Taxc/22/2008 Of Income Tax Officer v. M/S Jasraj Kewalchand Jain

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHATBU-ASPURTax Case (Income Tax Appeal) No./2008Appellant^,-T^^..1-*7';*" :,ii.^tf1comeTaxOfficer, Jagdalpur^-'•""^^"^"^.^(C-G-)..»tl•:>1.^^•-VERSUS^p^^^A^"T_ResBOndent^sss''i'""~Mis. Jasraj Kewalchand Jain,Kondagaon, Jagdalpur, DistrictBastar (C.G.)INCOME TAX APPEAL U/S. S60 A OF INCOME TAX ACT. 1961. ^C)'^/^' /.^y^v >'^^ , S/o Late Shri S/oSancheti, R/o Kondgaon,District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh' HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CORAM:HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J.HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. Appearance: Shri Anand Dadaria, counsel for the Appellant. JUDGEMENT(27th March, 2014) 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bitaspur Bench, Bilaspur (theTribunal) passed an order dated 15.02.2008 allowing the appeal of M/sJasraj Kewalchand Jain, Kondagaon (the Assessee) in respect of theassessment years (AYs) 1996-97 to 1998-99, holding the reopening ofthe assessment proceeding under section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act) to be illegal.However, the Income Tax Department (theDepartment) has filed the present appeals only in respect ofAYs 1997-98and1998-99. THE FACTS 2. The Assessee flled Income Tax return for the AYs 1996-97 and 1997-98 disclosing his income as ^17,060/- and ^22,590/-.However, noreturn was fited for the AY 1998-99. 3.It appears that certain information was received by the AssessingOfficer (the AO) from the government agencies regarding purchasesmade by the Assessee and thereafter, on the basis of the same, noticeswere issued to the Assessee under section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2003. A 4.TheAOmadetheadditionof %,11,212/-,^6,55,200/-and^6,16,170/- respectively in the three AYs. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the Assessee filed appeals beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the CIT-A). The CIT-A by itsorder dated 28.05.2007 partly allowed the appeals.The CIT-A by theorder, Upheld the reopening of the assessment under section 148 of theAct;Act; Maintained the additions made by the AO in respect of the AY1996-97;1996-97; Reduced the additionto ^4,21,391/- in respect ofthe AY 1997-98;andand Deleted the addition in respect of the AY 1 998-99. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Assessee filed appeals beforethe Tribunal. There is neither anything on record to show that any appealwas filed by the Department nor its counsel is able tojnform the court.We have proceeded on the footing that no appeal was flled by theDepartment. 7. The appeals wera allowed by the Tribunal on 15.02.2008 and theTribunat on the basis of the similar judgement given by the CIT-A in thecase of Lalit Kumar Jain (Appeal No.0125 of 2005-06) held the reopeningof the assessment to be illegal. Hence, the present two appeal in respectofthe AYs 1997-98 and 1998-99. THE DEC1SION 8. We have heard counsel for the Department. 9.Tax Case- 22 of 2008 was admitted on 16.06.2009 on the followingsubstantial questions of law: 'Whether(i) on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in hotding that the successor,CIT(A)islegallybound to follow thepredecessor CIT(A) findings? (ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that theaction of the Assessing Officer was unsustainable inreopening the assessment under Section 147 of theIncome Tax Act for the assessment year 1997-1998?'case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that theaction of the Assessing Officer was unsustainable inreopening the assessment under Section 147 of theIncome Tax Act for the assessment year 1997-1998?' 10. Tax Case- 25 of 2008 was also admitted on 16.06.2009 on the samequestion of law except in the second question the AY mentioned was1998-99 instead of 1997-1998. 11. According to the counsel for the Department, no appgal was filed inrespect of AY 1996-97 as the tax effect was less than ^4,00,000/-. 12. The counsel for the Department submits that: 10. Tax Case- 25 of 2008 was also admitted on 16.06.2009 on the samequestion of law except in the second question the AY mentioned was1998-99 instead of 1997-1998. 11. According to the counsel for the Department, no appgal was filed inrespect of AY 1996-97 as the tax effect was less than ^4,00,000/-. 12. The counsel for the Department submits that: In the tax cases principle of resjudicata has no relevance and inany case Lalit Kumar Jain was a different Assessee;any case Lalit Kumar Jain was a different Assessee; The decision by the CIT-A in Lalit Kumar's case has no bindingeffect on the Tribunal, which in any case is an higher authority;effect on the Tribunal, which in any case is an higher authority; Awrong decision does not entitle anyone else to claim parity. 13.There is some substance in the submission of the counsel for theDepartment.However, it is not necessary to go into the submissionsraised by him in respect of the AY 1996-97 as in our opinion, the taxcases should not be decided on merits because of the tax effect. 14.In respect of the AY 1998-99, the CIT-A had deleted the addition onmerits. Even, if the order of the Tribunal is set aside, then it will restorethe order ofthe CIT-A where the entire addition was deleted. 15. So far as the AY 1997-98 was concerned, the CIT-A had reduced theadditioh ^4,21,391/-.The income tax at that time was near about 30% /i"1?»^K:^^ ^-.: ?3>..^!''7/1 v and this percentage on the addition is less than ^4,00,OOO/-, which wasthe tax limit at the relevant time. <••' nimmi 16.In view ofabove, there is no justification to go into the question ofmerits. The tax cases are dismissed as barred by the tax effect.Sd/-ChiefJusticeSd/-Prashant Kumar MishraJudge