Chander Prakash Singh, Delhi V. ITO, Noida

ITA 1738/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6880 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN RAWAL SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: DR AJIT KALIA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC-I : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1738/DEL./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SHRI CHANDER PRAKASH SINGH, VS. ITO, WARD 1, GALI NO.9, JAGATPUR EXTN., NOIDA. NEAR RAMA PUBLIC SCHOOL, DELHI 110 084. (PAN : BBZPS5412D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : DR. AJIT KALIA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI ROBIN RAWAL, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.02.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) DATED 12.07.2011. 2. THE APPEAL IS LATE BY 34 DAYS. THE AFFIDAVIT WA S FILED ALONG WITH THE CONDONATION APPLICATION GIVING THE REASONS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SUFFERING FROM PSYCHIATRIC AND HYPERTENSION FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS . IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, I CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR BEFORE ME VEHEMENTLY C ONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE CIT (A)S ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED EX-PARTE WITHOUT GI VING THE EFFECTIVE HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, ON THIS I SSUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.1208/DEL./2015 2 4. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GOING TH ROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, I NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE, AN EX -PARTE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE AO ON AN INCOME OF RS.10,29,290/- AGAINST THE RETURNED IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,05,120/-. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) ALTHOUGH THE CIT (A) MENTIONED IN THE ORDER THAT NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR HEARING FOUR TIMES BUT NOBODY ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HE HAD NO OPTION BUT TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON MERITS, I NOTED THAT THE CIT (A) JUST CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT PASSIN G A SPEAKING ORDER BY DISCUSSING EACH AND EVERY ADDITION BEING MADE BY THE AO. THUS , I NOTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SIMPLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS WHETHER THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ALLOWED OR NOT. I, THEREFORE, CONVINCED THAT IT IS A FIT CASE WHERE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) HAS TO BE SET ASIDE. FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO, I NOTED THAT THE MAIN ADDITION MADE IN THIS CASE RELATES TO DIFFERENCE IN RESPECT OF RECEIPT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOU NT AND IN TDS CERTIFICATES. THIS ITSELF, IN MY OPINION, REQUIRES A RECONCILIATION. THIS REC ONCILIATION HAS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AN D FAIR PLAY TO BOTH THE PARTIES, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO/CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER T O THE FILE OF THE AO DIRECTING TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTE R GIVING PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS STATISTICALLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 18 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016/TS ITA NO.1208/DEL./2015 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), GHAZIABAD. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.