TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....given to Lalit Construction goes in my favour. Any error or omission in the contract does not make whole contract void. I am enclosing a table of transaction between Lalit Construction and myself for your perusal and consideration. The word "Loan" may please be read as "advance". It is the discretion of contractor how to make payment to the sub-contractor. The LT. authority has no jurisdiction to look into the condition of contract, you have only authority to check P & L account only. Hence, I request you to restrict yourself to the issues related to taxable income only. I had taken security deposit of Rs7,50,000 from Lalit Construction, which was returned under the threat of Shri Bala Nadgoankar sitting M.L.A. and Ex. M.o.S. Home (Rural) Government of Maharashtra. I state that Mr. Ashok Munot who is related to Vasundhara Construction had furnished my financial detail to one Mr.D.K. a gangster of Gavli gang who was killed in police encounter, who delivered threat to my life. This Ashok Munot is an associate of Lalit Construction. One attempt was made on my life where I fired in self defence. I was falsely implicated u/ s.307 of LP.C. by Kashi Mira police and as a result of this I w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and considering the various contentions, AO repeated the same additions in the re-assessment proceedings. However, before the ITAT could set aside the assessment vide order dated 18.2.2005, assessee filed a revised return on 11.02.2005 making certain more claims which were not accepted by AO, as this is not a valid revised return. Thereafter assessee requested AO to consider the same under section 154 vide letter dated 10.08.2005. These requests were also not considered as AO felt that there are no mistakes in the order. Various contentions were raised which were not accepted by AO, therefore, the matter was again preferred before the CIT (A). Before the CIT (A) the main contention was that AO has not followed the Board instructions in selection of scrutiny and so the jurisdiction to issue notice itself is bad in law. Further on various claims assessee has detailed submissions before the CIT (A). In the meantime, assessee also filed various criminal complaints against AO, Jt. Commissioner and the CIT (A) who passed the orders in the first round of assessment. The grounds raised before the CIT (A) were considered in detail by the CIT(A). While not accepting the issues on jurisdicti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6-91 18 Xerox copy of J. C. I. T.'s letter dated 23-10-2002 12 92-95 19 Xerox copy of Additional C. I. T.' s letter dated 13-05-2009 13 96-97 20 Xerox copy of A. C. T.'s letter dated 11-06- 2009 14 98 21 Xerox copy of [2005] 277 ITR 239 (MP) Arihant Builder v. ITAT 15 99-103 22 Xerox copy of Instruction no. 1851 dated 8-8- 1990- Guide line in respect of limited 16 104-105 23 Xerox copy of [2001] 115 TAXMAN 575 (MP) C.I. T. v. Ladharam Lakhimal (Prior Approval) 17 106-108 24 Xerox copy of Deepchand Kothari v.c. I. T. (Jurisdiction) 18 109-111 25 Xerox copy of (2007) 295 ITR 256 (Del) C. I. T. v. Best Plastic (P) Ltd (Circulars are binding on officers of I. T.) 19 112 26 Xerox copy of CIT v. Best Plastic Ltd. (295 ITR 256) (Circulars are binding on officers of I. T.) 20 113-113A 27 Xerox copy of CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji (1972) 4 SCC 394 (Validity of notice 21 114-114A 28 Xerox copy ofUco Bank v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC) (Circulars are binding on officers of I.T. 22 115-128 29 Xerox copy of Uco Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) (Instruct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6262/06 Hon'ble Bombay High Court directed CIT (A) to accept all documents 18 18.09.06 CIT (A) passed order on 2nd appeal 19 17.10.06 2nd appeal filed before ITAT 20 7.4.07 In W.P. No.1289 of 2007 Hon'ble Bombay High Court set aside order on MA and formed special bench to hear afresh 21 11.6.07 MA No.166/Mum/06 to expunge the remark of fabrication dismissed by ITAT 22 24.7.07 MA No.411/Mum/05 to expunge the remark of fabrication dismissed by ITAT 23 24.06.08 In W.P. No.3624/2008 Hon'ble Bombay High Court gave liberty to challenge notice dated 21.10.02 under section 143(2) 24 13.05.09 Office Supdt. Letter shows that the approval records were fabricated 25 11.06.09 ACIT letter shows that neither my name nor AY 2000-2001 contain in correspondences for approval 26 8.10.09 Police filed interim report in learned 24th A.C.M.M. Court stating ACIT - A.K. Gowada, JCIT A.B. Joshi and CIT (A) Pomela Prasad Committed offences under various sections of IPC. 27 8.8.11 Accused A.K. Gowada filed criminal applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pose off the petition dated 14th November 2011, prior to taking up the matter for hearing of the appeals and cross objection on merit. The sum and substance of the petition dated 14th November 2011, of Mr. M.H. Patel, is that the Sr. Departmental Representative, Mr. P.C. Mourya, has obstructed administration of justice, which would amount to criminal contempt within the meaning of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for the reason that he filed an application dated 25th October 2011, seeking adjournment on the ground that he is proceeding on leave and that he would be back on 21st November 2011. It is argued that the Sr. D.R. is trying to drag the hearing. The Sr. D.R., Mr. P.C. Mourya, submitted that for hearing on 14th November 2011, be requested for adjournment well in advance on 25th October 2011, as he had to proceed on leave. He further submitted that going on leave which has been sanctioned to him, cannot be considered obstruction of administration of justice. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the learned Departmental Representative has applied for adjournment well in advance, as leave has been sanctioned to him. The Vice President, Mumbai Zone, directed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mind while deciding the appeals. The issue of jurisdiction 11. Assessee's main contention on this issue was that the original notice issued under section 143(2) dated 21.10.2001 issued by the ACIT-24(2) was bad in law and was issued without prior approval of the JCIT and was not accompanied by the notice under section 142(1) and is a mechanical exercise of power by AO, which is legally bad in law, void and beyond jurisdiction and is violative of the Board circular on the issue. The written submissions on the issue placed in the paper book by assessee are as under:- Written submission by assessee: "1] Please refer to page 3 to 8. The ACIT vide letter dated 21-10-2002 sought approval of additional list of cases proposed to be scrutinized from JCIT. This list contains 101names of assessees. This list neither contains my name nor A. Y. 2000-01. 2] Please refer to page 9 to 12. The JCIT vide letter dated 23-10-2002 approved additional list of cases as proposed by ACIT. It is surprisingly noted by applicant that this list contains 51 names of assessee whereas the letter clearly state that the list proposed by ACIT is approved. No reason/s was/were given by JCIT. This list....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2002. The ACIT issued notice dated 21-10-2002 without prior approval of JCIT/Additional CIT which is without jurisdiction and illegal and deserves to be squash and set aside. In support of this I rely on Instruction no. 1851, dated 8-08-1990. The instruction(s) of C. B. D. T. are binding on I. T. officers. Further in support of this argument I rely on (2000) 164 CTR 341: (2001)115 Taxman 575: (2000) 245 ITR 340 (MP) in case of CIT v. Ladharam Lakhimal. 7] In Writ Petition no. 3624 of 2008 the Hon'ble Bombay High Court gave liberty to raise issuance of notice without prior approval in the pending appeal before ITAT Appeal no. 6359/M/06. 8] It appears that the ACIT 24 (2) has not filed this appeal under the direction of CIT Range 24 as required U/s 253 (2) of Income Tax Act 1961. The entire record in this connection be called for looking into criminal back grounds of I.T. Officers being mastermind in fabricating the records. The appeal is filed without jurisdiction. The appeal be dismissed with cost being not maintainable. In this connection I rely on 2002 AIR SCW 4939. 2] The CIT (Appeals) XXIV passed appellate order on 18- 09-2006 and it appears that the appeal is filed on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ired u/s. 143(2)(i) and 143(2)(ii), which are obligatory on the part of AO., thus said notice is a mechanical exercise of power by A 0., illegal, and beyond jurisdiction. No other notice/notices were served to me within twelve months as provided u/s.143(2)(ii), thus the return furnished by me become final and binding on I. T. Authority. 2) The notice u/s.143(2) dated 21-10-2002 was issued without prior approval of J. C.I. T. and hence bad in law, ultra virus and not tenable in law. 5.2 During the course of appellate proceeding, the appellant has made following submissions on these grounds :- "1] The Original notice u/s.143(2) dated 21-10-2002 issued by AC.I.T.24(2) to me, without serving notice u/s.142(1). The notice u/s.143(2) dated 21-10-2002 issued by AC.I. T.24(2) is annexed and marked as Exhibit 3. The notice u/s.142(1) dated 7-7-2005 (which has hand written remarks which shows that he was pre-determined) issued by AC.I. T.24(2) to me, without serving notice u/s.142(1). The notice u/s.142(1) dated 7-7-2005) is annexed and marked as Exhibit 4. Both the notices were mere notices which do not contains any details of accounts and or particulars to be produced as required ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....43(2) was duly served on the appellant within the aforesaid statutory period. The appellant was required by the said notice either to attend the office of the Assessing Officer or to produce or cause to be produced any evidence on which the appellant might rely in support of the return. This was perfectly worded in accordance with the provisions of section 143(2). There is no provisions u/s.143(2) to call for specific details or particulars. The powers to call for specific details and particulars are given u/s.142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is not necessary that the notice u/s.142(1) calling for specific details and particulars should also be served along with notice under section 143(2). The validity of an assessment will not be vitiated even if no notice under section 142(1) is issued during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, there is no requirement of law that the notice u/s.143(2) should be issued only after the prior approval of the Jt.CIT. Sometimes, such approvals are obtained only for administrative reasons. The CBOT Instruction dated 28/06/2002 relied upon by the appellant is applicable to limited scrutiny u/s.143(2)(i). This Instruction is not applicab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e JCIT. On this reason alone the issuance of notice has to be held bad in law. Assessee has relied on various case law which are as under: a) CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala, 82 ITR 821 (S.C) (1971) b) Deepchand Kothari vs. CIT 171 ITR 381 (Raj.) (1988) c) UCO Bank vs. CIT 237 ITR 889 (S.C) (1999) d) CIT vs. IOL 272 ITR 261 (S.C) (2004) e) S.C. Tanna and Modi & Others vs CIT (2007) f) Tamil Nadu Industrial Corporation Ltd. g) CIT vs. T.S. Thakur 295 ITR 256 (Del.) (2007). We do not propose to discuss legal propositions here in this order. 16. The above findings are given, without prejudice to the contentions raised by assessee and the arguments raised against the Department/ officers in various other proceedings. This order is not to be taken as the basis for or against the rival parties in any other proceedings as this issue was decided only for the Income Tax proceedings for adjudicating the matter before us. As reported briefly, there are various criminal complaints filed by assessee not only against the Departmental Officers but also against other parties. Therefore, we make it clear that this order should not be taken as a basis for dec....