Ramakant U Sharma HUF, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

ITA 1780/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9451 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PARKASH A. DOSHI
• Keywords: Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1780/DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ramakant U Sharma HUF Shop No.5, DDA Complex, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi PAN No.AAJHS2310C Vs ITO Ward- 32 (5) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Parkash A. Doshi, CA Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 26/10/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 14.02.2019 passed by CIT(A)-11, New Delhi, pertaining to A.Y.2010-11 assessment year is assailed on various grounds of appeal. These reads as under :- ITA No.1780/Del/2019 2 2. The Ld. AR inviting attention to the order sheets submitted that repeatedly the department has been seeking time to bring on record the documents to support the jurisdictional issue. For the said purpose attention was invited to the order sheet entries dated 25.10.2012; 27.01.2022, 10.02.2022; 10.05.2022; 11.07.2022 and yet again time was given on 01.09.2022. Accordingly, it was his submission that a number of opportunities have been provided to the Revenue to produce assessment records so as to justify that assumption of jurisdiction was valid in law. Thus, it was his prayer that the appeal be allowed quashing the orders. 3. The Sr. DR agreed that the department has been directed to ITA No.1780/Del/2019 3 produce the assessment records. It was submitted that he has filed a reply received from the Assessing Officer on email dated 20.10.2022 wherein it is informed that the assessment record for the specific period has not been located. For ready reference letter received and made available is extracted here under :- ITA No.1780/Del/2019 4 4. Accordingly, he pleaded his inability to meet the jurisdictional challenge as the relevant information from the field was not traceable. 5. The Ld. AR inviting attention to the impugned order submitted that before the First Appellate Authority the assessee has specifically raised specific arguments alleging that till date the Assessing Officer has never supplied the assessee reasons for reopening assessment. 5.1 For ready reference the relevant extract from page-4 of the impugned order was relied upon to emphasize the number of times the issue had been agitated. The submissions of the assessee extracted in the order, it was argued, would show that the assessee had also requested the First Appellate Authority to provide the reasons recorded. Despite repeated request to the Assessing Officer agitated before the CIT(A) also, the reasons till date have not been provided for reopening the assessment. Infact, it was argued that the AO had never recorded the reasons for reopening. It is seen that the said objection though extracted in the order has not been addressed by the First Appellate Authority. It has been argued that number of opportunities have been given by the Coordinate Benches right from 25.10.2021 onwards. The facts on record and the reply of the AO, it was argued, ITA No.1780/Del/2019 5 shows that reasons for reopening in fact were never recorded. Accordingly, considering the reply made available by the Revenue, it was his prayer that the orders be quashed. 6. The Sr. DR relies on the order. 7. I have heard submissions and gone through material available on record. Considering the departmental reply made available read alongwith number of opportunities provided to the Revenue to substantiate what reasons were recorded and whether it was made available to the assessee, I find that in the face of the reply available, the reasons recorded are not available with the Revenue. Hence, in the light of the specific submissions extracted in the order alleging non providing of the reasons for reopening and lack of filing the same before the ITAT, the absence of finding on the issues by the First Appellate Authority gives rise to concerns that possibly reasons for re- opening were never recorded. Accordingly, I am convinced that the jurisdiction has been assumed in the peculiar facts of the present case is without following the mandatory procedures. Without demonstrating the availability of the reasons recorded for the reopening on record, the assumption of jurisdiction and exercise of power in violation of the settled legal jurisprudence cannot be sustained. The orders are ITA No.1780/Del/2019 6 accordingly quashed. Said announcement was made in the Open Court at the time of hearing. 7. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Said order was pronounced in the open court on 31 st October, 2022. Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. Private Secretary* Poonam/CHD Date:- 31 .10.2022 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI