Sh. Sajid Mian Nasir, Muzaffarnagar V. ACIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 1612/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 161220114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAGAN SOOD
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT GUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS.1612 & 161 3/DEL/14 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NOS.-1612 & 1613/DE L/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006- 07) SAJID MIAN NASIR, L/H LATE SMT. HAMIDA BANO, 786/1-C, YOGENDERPURI, MUZAFFARNAGAR. PAN-ACCPB0597M (APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARNAGAR (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH.ANKIT GUPTA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH.GAGAN SOOD, SR.DR ORDER BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 01.11.2013 OF CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR PERTAINING TO 2006-07 ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ONLY DI FFERENCE BEING THAT IN ITA NO.- 1612/DEL/2014 , THE ASSESSEE IS APPEARING AS A LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. HAMIDA BANO AND ITA NO.- 1613/DEL/2014 , THE APPEAL FILED IS IN ASSESSEES OWN CAPACITY. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DECIDED BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. ITA NO.- 1612/DEL/2014 . BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.-3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE I MPUGNED ORDER ON LACK OF PROPER OPPORTUNITY. REFERRING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDE R IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT HEARING TH E ASSESSEE. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BY VIRTUE OF THE SMALLNESS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ASSAIL DATE OF HEARING 30.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08 .07.2015 2 ITA NOS.1612 & 161 3/DEL/14 THE SAME. HOWEVER ON ACCOUNT OF THIS FACT THE PENA LTY LEVIED CANNOT BE IMPOSED OR CONFIRMED. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT TH E VERY NATURE OF THE ADDITIONS WOULD SHOW THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE MERELY ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND SINCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE GRAVE INJUSTICE HAS OCCURRED. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HIS PRA YER THAT EITHER THE PENALTY BE QUASHED OR AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BE GRAN TED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS STATED BY HIM THAT HE UNDERTAKES THAT IN THE EVENTU ALITY, OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING IS PROVIDED, HE WOULD UNDERTAKE THAT THE AS SESSEE PARTICIPATES IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT (A). CONSIDERING THE PR AYER, THE LD. SR. DR HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE TO T HE CIT(A) AS ADMITTEDLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSES SEE. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONSIDERING THE LIMITED PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET AS IDE AND THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION T O PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3. ITA NO.- 1613/DEL/2014. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO A SIMILAR PRAYER RAISED IN GROUND NO.-3 SUBMITTED THAT IN TH E QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.-1413/DEL /2011 DATED 31.10.2014, THE ONLY ADDITION WHICH SURVIVED WAS THE ADDITION O F RS.80,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. THE ADDITIONS HAVING BEEN M ADE ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS IT WAS SUBMITTED DID NOT JUSTIFY THE LEVY OF PENALT Y U/S 271(1)(C). IN VIEW OF THE FACTS THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED EX-PARTE IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT EITHER THE PENALTY HERE IN ALSO BE QUASHED OR THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE TO THE CIT(A) DIRECTING THE SAID AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE AN O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. HEREIN ALSO HE GAVE AN ORAL UNDERTAKING THAT THE AS SESSEE WOULD FULLY PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS IF THE ISSUES ARE RE STORED TO THE CIT(A). THE LD. SR. DR HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE SAID REQUEST. ACCOR DINGLY CONSIDERING THE STAND OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE ISSUES ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT( A) FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL DECIDE THE SAME BY WAY OF A 3 ITA NOS.1612 & 161 3/DEL/14 SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE SAID OR DER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH OF JULY, 2015. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 08/07/2015 *AMIT KUMAR/R.N*/KAVITA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT AS SISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 4 ITA NOS.1612 & 161 3/DEL/14 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 30.06.2015 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 01.07.2015 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 08.07.2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 08.07.2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 08.07.2015 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 08.07.2015 PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 08 .07.2015 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.