Rajesh Malik, Rohtak (Haryana) V. ITO Ward-5 Rohtak , Rohtak (Haryana)

ITA 1742/DEL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5258 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2022
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

1 ITA no. 1742/Del/2022 Rajesh Malik Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1742/DEL/2022 [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Rajesh Malik, 746, Sector-1, Rohtak-124001 PAN- ACQPM8929E Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-5, Rohtak APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Sh. Tanpreet Singh Kohli, CA Department represented by Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20.09.2022 Date of pronouncement 20.09.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre 9NFAC), Delhi, dated 16.07.2021, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts. 2. On the facts and circumstance of the case the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts as the same has been passed without giving any finding on the merits of the case. 2 ITA no. 1742/Del/2022 Rajesh Malik Vs. ITO 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the initiation of the reassessment proceedings and the reassessment order are bad both on facts and in law and liable to be quashed as the statutory conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been complied with. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment order passed by the A.O. is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been reopened on the basis of the reasons which are vague and has been recorded without application of mind on the part of the A.O. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in confirming the addition of Rs.l 1,15,000/- on account of deposits in the bank. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in confirming the addition despite the fact that AO has passed the order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. The present appeal is barred by limitation. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. It is stated that the order was passed by the learned CIT(Appeals) on 16.7.2021 and received by the assessee on the same date. The assessee had handed over the order to the clerk working in the office of the Chartered Accountant for filing the appeal. However, the clerk kept the order with him and therefore the appeal could not be filed. 3. Learned Sr. DR opposed the submissions and submitted that the assessee has 3 ITA no. 1742/Del/2022 Rajesh Malik Vs. ITO been negligent in not filing the appeal in time. 4. I have heard learned authorized representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the totality of the facts and the submissions made by the assessee that the appeal could not be filed due to the negligence of the staff of the Chartered Accountant, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is take up for hearing on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no effective representation on behalf of the assessee before the Assessing officer. Therefore, the order was passed u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that in the interest of principles of natural justice an opportunity be given to the assessee for representing his case before the assessing authority. 6. On the contrary learned Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 7. I have heard learned authorized representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the fact that assessee did not have effective representative before the Assessing officer and to sub-serve the principles of natural justice it is deemed fit and proper to set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee to represent his case. The impugned order is, therefore set aside and assessment is restored to the file of Assessing Officer for assessment afresh. The grounds raised by the assessee are 4 ITA no. 1742/Del/2022 Rajesh Malik Vs. ITO allowed for statistical purpose. 8. Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 20.09.2022. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI