ARPITA BANSAL vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INCOME TAX APPELLA. TRI. AND ORS

The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) against the order dated 18.2.2011, Annexure A-3 passed in ITA No.2261/Del/2010 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), claiming following substantial questions of law:- “a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law to restore the case back to the Assessing Officer, respondent No.3? b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings returned by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, respondent No.1 without taking into consideration the provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act that the very initiation of proceedings are bad in law and vitiated are sustainable in the eyes of law? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings returned by respondent No.1 without taking into consideration the fact that respondent No.3 has not challenged the findings of respondent No.2 on the issue of lack of invalid proceedings of re-assessment under Sections 147 to 151 before respondent No.1 are sustainable in the eyes of law? d) Whether the findings of respondent No.1 are perverse and against the relevant provisions of law?

Brief facts as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 24.3.2009 for the assessment year 2003-04 on the ground that the appellant is the beneficiary of the accommodation entry amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- obtained from Mr. Sushil Goel vide Bank instrument/cheque No.153687 dated 12.8.2002 drawn on Jai Laxmi Cooperative Bank of Fatehpuri, Delhi. Mr. Sushil Goel has been doing the business of providing accommodation entries in a big way after obtaining equivalent cash plus commission on it. The alleged accommodation entry of Rs.2,50,000/- was credited in the assessee’s bank account with Punjab and Sindh Bank, Sector 16, Ajronda, Faridabad. It was further alleged that the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- is the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources which she routed through the conduit of the above person. The appellant has not filed the return of income for the assessment year 2003-04. Respondent No.3 vide assessment order dated 14.12.2009 made the assessment under section 144 of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Act were ordered to be initiated separately. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Faridabad [In short, “the CIT(A)”] who vide order dated 25.3.2010, Annexure P.2 allowed the appeal and annulled the assessment. The department filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 18.2.2011, Annexure P.3, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. Hence this appeal by the assessee.

Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee submitted that the Tribunal was in error in remanding the case to the Assessing Officer for adjudication. According to the learned counsel, the revenue had failed to adhere to the provisions of Section 282 of the Act and, therefore, the proceedings were void ab initio and legally unsustainable. In such circumstances, the remanding of the case was futile exercise and would cause unnecessary harassment to the appellant.