Seema Chauhan, Hisar V. ITO WARD - 4, Hisar

ITA 1469/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0112 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV PUNDIR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Set aside
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI SMC-1 BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1469/DEL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SEEMA CHAUHAN, 440, DEFENCE COLONY, HISAR, HARYANA-125001. PAN-AGEPC5627R VS ITO, WARD-4, HISAR. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SH. LALIT MOHAN, CA RESPONDENT BY SH.GAURAV PUNDIR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 19.07.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23 .07.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2010-11 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), HISAR DAT ED 28.02.2019. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. 'THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS), HISAR HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND, ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING TH E DETERMINATION OF INCOME MADE BY THE LEARNED INCOME TAX, OFFICER, WARD-4, HISAR OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.17,68 ,200/- IN AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 22.12.20179 U/S 144/143(3 )/147 OF THE ACT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL EX- PARTE WITHOUT GRANTING ANY FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.1469/DEL/2020 2 | P A GE 2.1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUS E FOR THE APPELLANT FOR NOT CAUSING APPEARANCE ON THE DATES F IXED FOR HEARING AND AS SUCH DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL WITHOUT GRANTING FAIR, MEANINGFUL AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY IS UNTENABL E. 2.2. THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, AN ORDER PASSED IN LIMIN I WITHOUT EFFECTIVELY DISPOSING OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS IN INFRACTION OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH , ORDER SO MADE IS OTHERWISE TOO ILLEGAL, INVALID AND A VITIAT ED ORDER. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND, CO MPLETION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144/147/143(3) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAME WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTIO N AND HENCE DESERVED TO BE QUASHED AS SUCH. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ALSO ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING AN ADD ITION OF RS.15,79,800/- REPRESENTING CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT MAINTAINED WITH ICICI BANK LTD. 2. FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RE-OPENED ON THE GROUND OF CASH DEPOSI TED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEED ED FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 143(3)/147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT) AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.15,79,800/- AGAINST THE IN COME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,88,400/-. 3. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED A PPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A). BEFORE LD.CIT(A) ALSO, THERE WAS NO RE PRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF ITA NO.1469/DEL/2020 3 | P A GE THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E WAS DISMISSED EX-PARTE TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED A PPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED BY LD.CIT(A). H E SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, AN OPPOR TUNITY MAY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE ATLEAST BEFORE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO PREJUDICE WOULD BE CAUSED TO T HE REVENUE IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE LD.CIT(A) RATHER IT WOULD SUB-SERVE IN THE INTEREST OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THEREFORE, HE PR AYED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO LD.CIT(A) FOR DECISION ON MERIT. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. SR. DR OPPOSED THESE SUBMIS SIONS AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. I HAVE HEARD CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN THE LAST OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL IS RESTORED TO LD .CIT(A) TO DECIDE IT AFRESH AFTER GRANTING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESS EE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DIRECTED NOT TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1469/DEL/2020 4 | P A GE 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ABOVE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED ON CONCLUSION OF VIRT UAL HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES ON 23 RD JULY, 2021. SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI