Sh. Balbir Sharma, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1043/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86814 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R R KUMAR
• Keywords: Salary income; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU: JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1043/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 BALBIR SHARMA VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, C-67A, YADAV NAGAR, WARD 40(2), NEW DELHI. SAMEYPUR, DELHI. PAN: ACCPS 4257 P ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.S. SINGHVI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 17-02-2015 DATE OF ORDER : ______-02-2015. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M:- THIS APPEAL, PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18-12-2012, PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS)-XXX, NEW DELHI, RELATING TO A.Y. 2003-04. 2. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS IN RECEIPT OF SALARY INCOME FROM MINISTRY OF SPORTS & YOUTH AFFAIRS AND WAS ALSO DERIVING SOME AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE HAD FILE D HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 1,71,000/-. THE AO OBSERVED THAT INTIMATION DATED 26-3-2009 REGARDING TAX EVASION BEING MADE BY THE A SSESSEE, WAS RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DIT(INV.), NEW DELHI RELATIN G TO SEARCH CONDUCTED BY 2 CBI ON THE ASSESSEE ON 10-7-2006 AND UNEARTHED RECE IPT OF HUGE UNACCOUNTED MONEY. THE ASSESSDEES CASE WAS, ACCORD INGLY, REOPENED AND ADDITION U/S 68 OF RS. 25 LACS WAS MADE. 3. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS ON VARIOUS DATES AS MENTIONED IN THE L D. CIT(A)S ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS, INTER ALIA, TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUN DS: 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN STATING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN AVA ILING THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING AVERMENT THAT THE APPELLANT IS LAZY AND NON- COOPERATIVE AND THAT THE AO SHOULD TAKE COHESIVE ACTION IN COLL ECTING TAXES FROM SUCH LAZY APPELLANT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAS DISMISSE D THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , IN LIMINE, FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION QUA THE ASSESSEE , BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE NON COOPERATI O N ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT . IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN DECIDING HIS APPEAL . THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR N O N - PROSECUTION AND ALSO ON MERITS AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED ANY D O CUME NT ARY EVIDENCE REGARDING HIS CLAIM IN THE APPEALS. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSES S EE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION AND ALSO NON AVAI LABILITY OF ANY SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH EVIDENCES, IN SUPPORT OF GROUNDS TAKEN BY HIM . I FIND SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION IN THE 3 FOLLOWING CASES:- 1. CIT V . F OCUS E STATES P .LTD . V. 286 ITR 410 ( 2 00 6 ) (DELHI HIGH COURT) - HEL D THAT RULE 25 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES,1963 , EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OF AN APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE AP P ELLANT, IF ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE MATTER IS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE RESPONDENT DOES N OT APPEAR IN PERSON OR THROUGH AN AUTH O RIZED REPRESENTATIVE 2. ANNAPUMA AGENCIES VS. DY.CIT, CIRCLE - L L , AAYAKAR BHAVAN AHMEDABAD - (20II-TIOL - 645 - ITAT - AHM). 'HELD THAT WHETHER FAILURE TO ATTEND PROCEEDINGS BE FORE AO ATTRACTS PENALTY FOR NON - APPEARANCE . THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES. WHATEVER EXPLANA TION WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE ID.CIT(A) WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED TH ROUGH ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WI T H THE ORDER OF THE ID.CIT(A). - WE CONFIRM THE SAME AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE.' THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR N ON PROSECUTION AND ALSO NON AVAILABILITY OF ANY SUBMIS SIONS ALONG WITH EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF GROUNDS TAKEN BY HIM 5. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN THE EYE OF LAW. THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS DISMISSED ASSESSEES APPEAL IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION, WITHOUT T OUCHING THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WANTED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE, BEING FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, HE WAS DUTY BOUND TO DISPOSE OF THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM ON MERITS. IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS SET ASID E AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO HIM WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A REASONED ORDER, ON THE 4 GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, OF COURSE, AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20-02-2015. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU ) ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 20-02-2015. MP: C OPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR