2014 (5) TMI 848

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) Sri Umesh Raju, (iii) Smt. Arathi Raju, and (iv) Sri Bhaskar Raju. The relevant assessment years are 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. I. ITA Nos.611, 612 & 613 - Ays 2004-05 to 2006-07 - P.Shyamaraju (indl): 2. The Revenue has, in its Memorandum of Appeals, raised an identical solitary issue, namely, 'that the CIT (A) failed to recognize that the validity of assessments is legally not connected with the issue of warrant which was issued in joint names.' II. ITA Nos.614, 615 & 616 - Ays 2004-05 to 2006-07 - P.Shyamaraju (indl); III. ITA Nos.617 & 618 - Ays 2004-05 & 2006-07 - Sri Umesh Raju (indl); IV. ITA Nos.619 & 620 - Ays 2004-05 & 2006-07 - Smt Aratiraju (indl); & V. ITA Nos.621 & 622 - Ays 2004-05 & 2006-07 - Sri Bhaskarraju (indl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ramed assessment orders u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, dated 31.12.2008 for the said assessment years came up for consideration before the earlier Bench of this Tribunal with regard to the issuance of 'joint warrant'. After having considered the assessee's contentions as well as the perusal of the relevant 'joint warrant' issued by the Revenue, the Bench struck down the assessment orders dated 31.12.2008 for the AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07 as not maintainable and also dismissed the revenue's appeals. 5.1 The assessee's appeals against the orders of AO giving effect to the orders of the then CIT (A) came up for consideration before the present CIT (A). After taking into account the contentions put-forth by the assessee as well as in conform....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n, the Bench had ruled vide its common order dated 6.1.2012 (supra) that the assessments made for the AYs 2004-05 to 2006- 07 based on a 'joint warrant' were not maintainable and, accordingly, annulled. In the meanwhile, the AO, based on the assessment orders dated 31.12.2008, had levied penalties u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act in those assessees for the assessment years under dispute. Aggrieved, the assessees took up the issues before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) had, after having considered the assessees' submissions and also finding of the earlier Bench of this Tribunal on the assessees' quantum appeals, allowed the assessees' appeals in her combined order for the following reasons: "6. In the present case, the assessments in the case of Sri P S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch was ab initio void. The learned DR had, further, argued that while annulling the assessment orders neither the Hon'ble Tribunal nor the CIT (A) considered the issues on merit with regard to the additions made in the assessment orders. It was submitted by the DR that being aggrieved with the findings of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the above mentioned cases; the Department has also filed appeals before the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court which are still pending. The learned DR had, further, submitted that the department has also filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.J. Kumar against the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court on the issue of a joint warrant. In conclusion, it was pleaded that in view of the....