SUBHASH CHANRDA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for Brevity the Act'), the appellant -assessee has challenged order dated 13 -10 - 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'), in ITA No. 111/Chd/1996, in respect of assessment year 1992 -93. It has been claimed that the following substantial questions of law would arise for determination of this Court:

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant -assessee, who is a businessman in Sirsa (Haryana), was subjected to a survey under Section 133A of the Act, which was conducted at his business premises on 3 -2 -1992. During the course of survey a cash book for the period 1 -4 -1991 to 1 -4 -1992 (D -l), ledgers (D -2 and D -3) and loose papers (D -4) were found. When those documents were: compared with the regular books of accounts, it emerged that the appellant -assessee had been making investments, advancing loans and incurring expenditure, which were not found recorded in the regular books of accounts. Accordingly, a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the appellant -assessee on 25 -2 -1993 requiring him to file the return of income by 15 -3 -1993. The return was filed on 1 -3 -1993, declaring loss of Rs. 15,700. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, vide intimation dated 29 -3 -1993. It is appropriate to mention that no objection with regard to jurisdiction of the assessing officer was raised. Later on, the case of the appellant -assessee was selected for scrutiny after obtaining prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner. After issuance of notices to the appellant -assessee from time to time, the assessing officer completed the assessment vide his order dated 13 -3 -1995, determining the income of the appellant -assessee at Rs. 53,16,730 as against the returned loss of Rs. 15,700. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), one of the grounds raised was that the order of assessment, dated 13 -3 -1995, passed by the assessing officer was liable to be set aside because it was without jurisdiction. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the assessment order and directed the assessing officer to make fresh assessment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant -assessee. In respect of the legal ground concerning jurisdiction raised by the appellant -assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) opined that it did not require any adjudication. The appellant -assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The argument that the order passed by the assessing officer, Sirsa, was without jurisdiction, has been rejected by the Tribunal by placing reliance on Section 124(3) of the Act. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from paras 11 and 12, which read as under:

(3.) MR . Yogesh Putney, learned Counsel for the respondent -Revenue has submitted that this is not a case falling under Sub -section (4) read with Sub -section (2) of Section 124 of the Act. He has maintained that the case falls within the scope of Sub -section (3)(b) of Section 124 of the Act. He has, thus, submitted that the aforementioned provisions apply to a case where no return has been filed after the expiry of the time allowed by the notice under Section 142(1) or Section 148 of the Act. Learned Counsel has maintained that once in response to notice under Section 142(1), dated 25 -2 -1993, return was filed on 1 -3 -1993 before the due date i.e. 15 -3 -1993, then as per provisions of Sub -section (3)(b) of Section 124 of the Act, the assessee was not entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, especially when it is not disputed that the assessee was carrying on his business in Shop No. 62, Nai Mandi, Sirsa.