9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA Nos. 1152/CHD/2019, 1154/CHD/2019 and 1156/CHD/2019 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2021 - Diva Singh, Member (J) For the Appellant : Vibhor Garg, C.A. For the Respondents : Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT and Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT ORDER These three appeals of three different assessees are being taken up together as in each of these appeals pertaining to 2011-12 assessment years, the issues and arguments remain identical. Accordingly, on the request of the parties, common order in all these appeals is being passed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the issues as found addressed in ITA 1152/CHD/2019 are being taken up first. Herein the assessee is aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A)-I Ludhiana. Various grounds have been raised therein, however, the parties argued ground No. 2 3 in the present appeal. These read as under: 2. That in the facts circumstances of the case, the re-opening of the assessment proceedings u/s. 147/148 are illegal, without jurisdiction and without application of mind as addition is made on protective basis and further ignored the fact that the investment was made in AY 2012-13 and not in AY 2011-12. 3. That the Ld. Appellate Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s share application money with M/s. KOC Industries Ltd., the jurisdictional AO formed a prima facie belief of escapement of income from taxation in the hands of the appellant and, therefore, assumed the jurisdiction to reassess the appellant by issuing the necessary notice under the provisions of section 148 of the Act, after following the necessary procedure in this regard in terms of recording his satisfaction obtaining the requisite approval from the competent authority. In the ensuing re-assessment proceedings, the appellant could not explain the sources of investment of ₹ 20 lakhs as share application money with the aforesaid company. The said investment was thus considered as unexplained within the meaning of section 69 of the Act. However, it was noted by the AO that M/s. KOC Industries Ltd. was assessed under the provisions of section 143(3)/263 for the A.Y. 2011-12, in which the aforesaid investment of the appellant was considered as unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section 68 of the Act on substantive basis. Thus, to avoid double taxation, ₹ 20 lakhs was added back by the AO in the hands of the appellant on protective basis. 3. Appeal against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deemed appropriate to allow the appeal of the assessee on the aforesaid grounds as the substantive addition has attained finality. At the same time, it is clarified that the factum of the cheque dated 31.03.2011 of ₹ 20 lacs in favour of M/s. KOC Industries Ltd. stated to be cleared in 2012-13 assessment year is kept open for consideration in the said appeal and is not being considered or decided in the present appeal as the present appeal is being decided only on the basis of the fact that substantive addition has attained finality. In the circumstances, protective addition cannot be sustained. Said order was pronounced at the time of virtual hearing itself in the presence of the parties via Webex. 8. The appeal, accordingly, is allowed. 9. In ITA 1154/CHD/2019, the facts and circumstances remain identical, however, in the present appeal the CIT(A) has considered and decided the issue dismissing the appeal on limitation as well as on protective basis. 10. The relevant findings under challenge are set out in para 3 which reads as under: 3. Appeal against the aforesaid order of assessment was preferred belatedly on 29/03/2019 and the reasons for the delay have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucidate any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 12. Both the parties have been heard. Addressing the specific reasoning in the context of ground No. 5, first it is seen that the impugned order is non-speaking and vague as the ld. CIT(A) has not even cared to set out the specific number of days by which the appeal was found to be delayed. As per law, the adjudicating authority in all fairness is first required to put the appellant to specific notice of the fact of delay noticed, if any in the filing of the appeal. The adjudicating authority necessarily needs to set out the number of days by which the petition/application is found to be delayed and thereafter afford the party an opportunity and reasonable time to explain the delay. It is only after considering the submissions, the adjudicating authority is to pass a speaking order setting out the reasons as to why the delay is being condoned or the application is being dismissed. In the facts of the present case, it is seen that the adjudicating authority has passed a vague generalistic order where it is not clear whether any such opportunity in clear term was afforded to the assessee. It is seen that no care was taken even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
