Rukmini Polytubes Pvt. Ltd., Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1231/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7449 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 31-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY
• Assessee Lawyers: A K JAIN
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1231/ DEL/ 2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. N O. 1231 /DEL/2013 A.Y. : 200 4 - 0 5 RUKMINI POLYTUBES PVT. LTD., X - 55/102,LOHA MANDI, NARAINA, DELHI 110 028 (PAN: AACCR8167Q) VS. ITO, WARD 15(4), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. A .K. JAIN, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. VIKRAM SAHAY, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 3 1 - 1 2 - 2014 DATE OF ORDER : 31 - 1 2 - 2014 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : J M TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) - X VIII , NEW DELHI DATED 18 . 12 .201 2 P ERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 4 - 0 5 . 2 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESEE HAD FILED RETURN DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 4,73,690/ - WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. LATER ON AN INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, NEW DELHI THAT THE ASSESEE IS AMONGST THE B ENEFICIARIES OF BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TOTALING TO RS. 10,00,000/ - . ACCORDINGLY, THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED AND NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 28.3.2011. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESEE ALONG W ITH THE ITA NO. 1231/ DEL/ 2013 2 NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT DATED 28.3.2011. TO SUM UP, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LACS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE PARTIES IS HELD AS ASSESSEE S INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND IS ASSESSED IN ITS HANDS AS SUCH. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, NEED NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.12.2012 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THE OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESEE AND SHE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE S AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS CONTRARY TO TH E PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. HE ALSO DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALONGWITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 306 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THE COPIES OF THE VARIOUS LETTERS ALONGWITH OTHER DOCUMENTS EVIDENCE AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS SUPPORTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTES MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESS EE. IT WAS STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DEALT WITH THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUND NO. 4 & 5 BEFORE HER. 4.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED ITA NO. 1231/ DEL/ 2013 3 THE IMPU GNED ORDER UNDER THE LAW AS WELL AS ACCORDING TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE S CASE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE S AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHA PE OF PAPER BOOK AS MENTIONED. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS IN OUR OPINION IS NOT A SPEAKING ONE, BECAUSE LD. CIT(A) HAS ONLY REPRODUCED THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE S IN DISPUTE AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HER AND ONLY PASS AN ORDER WHICH IS A NON - SPEAKING ONE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCE AS WELL AS THE LAW RELATING TO ISSUE IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY RAISED THE ARGUMENTS, HENCE, WE ACCEPT THE SAME AND IN OUR CONSIDERED OP I NION, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THEREFORE, WE CANCEL THE IM PUGNED ORDER WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE S IN DISPUTE AFRESH, UNDER THE LAW, AFTER APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. WE FURTHER DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO GIVE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM AND DECIDE THE SAME, AS PER LAW. ITA NO. 1231/ DEL/ 2013 4 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN C OURT ON 31 /1 2 /2014, UPON CONCLUSION OF HEARING. SD/ - SD/ - [ N.K. SAINI ] [ H.S. SIDHU ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 3 1 / 1 2 /201 4 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NO. 1231/ DEL/ 2013 5 DATE OF DICTATION . DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS .. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER SENT TO MEMBER FOR SIGNATURE DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK AFTER PRONOUNCEMENT TO THE SR. PS/PS . DATE ON WHICH THE FILE G OES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER ..