IN THE ITAT, CUTTACK BENCH
CM. GARG, J.M. & L.P. SAHU, A.M.
DCIT v. Improve Traders (P) Ltd.
IT(SS)A Nos. 56 - 58/CTK/2018 & IT(SS)A Nos. 188/CTK/2019 & Cross Objection Nos. 15 - 17/CTK/2019
A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2015-16
14 December, 2020
Revenue by: M.K. Gautam, Commissioner Departmental Representative
Assessee by: M.K. Agarwalla, Authorised Representative
L.P. Sahu, A.M.
The Revenue has filed four appeals against the separate Order, dated 23-3-2018 & 14-3-2019, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-2, Bhubaneswar for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016. The assessee has also filed cross objections for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, respectively.
2. At the outset, we find that all the three cross objections filed by the assessee are barred by limitation of 355 days, which has been explained by the assessee vide application, dated 29-7-2019 and the same has been filed before us on 30-8-2020 along with affidavit, to which learned Departmental Representative has no objection. Considering the above application of the assessee, we find that the assessee has sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay and the cross objections filed by the assessee have been heard finally along with the appeals of the Revenue.
3. On perusal of the record of the all the appeals of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee, we find that IT(SS)A No. 58/CTK/2018 was disposed off on, dated 27-8-2018 due to low tax effect as per the CBDT Circular, however, this appeal was wrongly posted for hearing again on the schedule date, therefore, no order shall be passed as the same has already been disposed off. Consequently, the cross objection filed by the assessee in CO No. 17/CTK/2019 has also become infructuous.
4. The issue involved in IT(SS)A No. 56&57/CTK/2018 for the assessment years 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 are similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity, first we decide IT(SS)A No. 56/CTK/2018 filed for the assessment year 2012-2013 and the decision of the same shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal for the assessment year 2013-2014 also.
5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal for assessment year 2012-2013 read as under :--
(a) On the point of law involved in the case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in annulling the assessment order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 25-11-2016 without duly applying the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
(b) On the point of law, learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in observing that provisions of section 153B and 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be read together and they have to be harmoniously construed, without appreciating the fact that both the sections are independent to one another and limitation imposed in one is not be read in conjunction with the limitation imposed in the other.
(c) Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering the fact that time limit for completion of assessment available to him is solely guided by the provisions of section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the limitation imposed as per section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is for the valuation officer and assessing officer is no way be to guided by such limitation.
(d) Any other grounds with the permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.
6. Brief facts of the case are that the a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the business premises of the assessee and residential premises of its promoters/Directors on 24-10-2013. Thereafter notice under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 9-3-2015 was issued to the assessee to file the return of income for the previous year within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. Accordingly, the assessee filed the return of income on 5-1-2016 showing a total income of Rs. NIL. The assessee had filed return under section 139(1) of the Act showing a total loss of Rs. 57,438 on 31-3-2013. After filing of the return of income, a reference was made to Valuation Cell by the assessing officer (here-in-after referred to as assessing officer) for determining the cost of investment/construction in the property at 'SIDDHI VINAYAK ENCLAVE' LAXMI NAGAR , NEAR YATRI NIWAS, CUTTACK ROAD, BHUBNESWAR ODISHA under section 142A of the Act vide Letter F.No. ACIT/CC-1/BBSR/2015-16/2236, dated 14-1-2016. In the letter for reference made under section 142A of the Act which was specifically requested to submit the valuation report on or before 5-3-2016 because the case will be barred by limitation on 31-3-2016. The valuation report was received by post on 3-10-2016 though only the forwarding letter of the report was sent by the Valuation Cell through e-mail on 27-9-2016. This fact was communicated to the assessee by the assessing officer vide his Letter, dated 30-9-2016. The other statutory notices were issued to the assessee for compliance of the case. In this regard, the authorized representative of the assessee appeared from time to time and filed certain details, particulars and explanation were filed, and kept on record. After examining the details submitted by the assessee, the assessing officer observed as under:-