Shubhandu Shekhar Hari, Ghaziabad V. ITO Ward 2(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 1645/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9583 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: EKTA VISHNOI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 1645, 1646 & 1647/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012- 13 SHUBHANDU SHEKHAR HARI, VS. ITO, WARD 2(3), GHAZIABAD FLAT NO. 304, PLOT NO. D-88, KAUSHAMBI HOUSING COMPLEX, GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH (PAN: ABUPH3737N) ( ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY: MS. EKTA VISHNOI, SR. DR. ORDER THESE 03 APPEALS ARE FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS ALL DATED 31.12.2018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GHAZIAB AD RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. IN THESE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED EXACTLY SIMILAR GROUNDS, THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ARE ONLY REPRODUCED HEREUND ER:- 1. EVIDENCE ON RECORD NOT ACCEPTED. 2. ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. 3. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT WERE IGNORED. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY THE LD. DR, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST, IN SPITE OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE, NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INV OLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WO ULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, I AM DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEALS EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 2 5. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE. NO DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED N ON-COOPERATIVE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER PERUSING THE RECORDS, IT IS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AO DID NOT AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE CASE AND DID NOT ACT ACCORDI NG TO THE PROCEDURE REGARDING ADDITION. IT WAS ALSO THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE WERE IGNORED. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, I SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FIL E OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR HEARING ON 13.01.2020 AT 10.00 AM WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPT THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDER THE SU BMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT NO NOTICE FOR HEAR ING WILL BE ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED THROUGH HIS COUNSE L TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 13.01.2020 AT 10.00 AM FOR HEARING TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT IN THE CASE AN D FILE ALL THE EVIDENCES AND SUBMISSIONS TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 03 APPEALS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 01/10/2019. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 01/10/2019 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES 3