Harish Bhasin, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1468/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0016 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K R MANJANI
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 1468/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : - 2002-03 HARISH BHASIN VS . ACIT T-1, RAJOURI GARDEN CENTRAL CIRCLE-13 NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN AALPB2977Q) (APPELLANT) (R ESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.R. MANJANI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY :SHRI T.VASANTHAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING :13.4.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6. 5.2015 O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA,VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT . YEAR 2002-03 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER :- 1.) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) II, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF A SUM OF RS.36,00,000.0 0 BEING AMOUNTS OF GIFTS AND LOANS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR AL THOUGH THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE PARTIES WERE DULY SUBMITTED NOT ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT ALSO DURING THE APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS. 2.) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) II, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER OUGHT TO HAVE RESTRICTED HIS ADDITIONS TO THE FIGURES THAT THE NOTIC E OF REOPENING HAD ORIGINALLY MENTIONED WHICH WAS RS.10,00,000.00 BUT T HE ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE WITH AN ADDITION OF RS.36,00,000.00 . 3.) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS)II, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AN IRREGULA RITY IN THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143 (2) AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENTS CO ULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IN VIEW OF ITA NO. 1468/DEL/2012 HARISH BHASIN VS. ACIT 2 THE IRREGULARITY. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIO NER (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT EVEN MENTIONING THE SAME IN THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIO NAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL :- 1. 'ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. A.O. AND LD. CIT(A) HAVE ERRED IN TAKING AND SUSTAINING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 WHICH ARE INVALID, ILLEGAL AND VOID FIRSTLY BECAUSE THESE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO ASSESSMENT U/S. 153A, SECONDLY WITHOUT REASONS AND THIRDLY BECAUSE IT IS ON SAME MATERIAL WHICH IS ALREADY ON RECORD.' 2. THAT ASSESSEE IS A LAYMAN SO FAR INCOME TAX MAT TERS ARE CONCERNED. CONSEQUENTLY NO DEFAULT COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO HIM S PECIALLY WHEN WRITTEN ARGUMENTS BEFORE CIT(A) DULY REFER TO INVALIDITY OF SEC. 147 PROCEEDINGS AND IT COULD NOT BE ARGUED BEFORE LD. A. O . AS HE DID NOT SUPPLY COPY OF REASONS INSPITE OF REPEATED REQUESTS. 3. THAT SINCE THE ABOVE GROUND IS LEGAL ONE FOR WH ICH THERE IS ALREADY MATERIAL ON RECORD, SUCH GROUND IS TO BE ADMITTED, IS S ETTLED LAW. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ISSUE IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEING LEGAL IN NATURE, MAY BE ADM ITTED. LD. DR HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE NOT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF AP PEAL SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS R EGARDING THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. WE FIND THAT THE ISSU E RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF ACTION TAKEN U/ S 147 OF THE ACT BEING LEGAL IN NATURE AND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, WE ADMIT THE TWO ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ISSU ES IN THESE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE NOT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE C IT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY THE ISSUES IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A ITA NO. 1468/DEL/2012 HARISH BHASIN VS. ACIT 3 DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. IN VIEW OF OUR RESTORING THE ISSUES IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A), THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO NOT ADJUDICATED BY US AND ARE ACCORDINGLY RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A DENOVO APPELLATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND TO ADJUD ICATE THE ISSUES IN THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ALSO. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH MAY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (G.C. GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDE NT DATED: THE 6 TH MAY, 2015 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR ITA NO. 1468/DEL/2012 HARISH BHASIN VS. ACIT 4 SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 13.4.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 13.4.2 015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER