Balvinder Singh Monga, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1825/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4906 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 143(2)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1825/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA NO. 1825/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2006-07 BALVINDER SINGH MONGA, 22, EXPRESS TOWER, AZADPUR, NEW DELHI -110033 (PAN: AGCPM8860C) VS. ITO, WARD 20(3), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.12.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XXII, NEW DELHI IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN PASSING AN EXPARTE ORDER WITHOUT SERVING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND ASSESSEE BY SH. SATYAJIT GOEL, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY SH. VIPUL KASHYAP, SR. DR. ITA NO.1825/DEL/2011 2 LD. CIT(A)-XXII HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. HENCE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY, AS SUCH, BE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING THE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE AND THE CIT(A)-XXII HAS ALSO ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE CASE BY PRODUCING THE PARTY. HENCE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE AND SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR REASSESSMENT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ADDING UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 7,00,000/- ON WHOLLY UNTENABLE, ILLEGAL, ERRONEOUS, AND ARBITRARY GROUNDS AND THE CIT(A)-XXII HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE SAME. HENCE, THE ADDITION MAY, AS SUCH, BE DELETED. 4. THAT ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN ADDING CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,17,960/- ON WHOLLY UNTENABLE, ILLEGAL, ERRONEOUS AND ARBITRARY GROUNDS AND THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE SAME. HENCE, THE ADDITION MAY, AS SUCH, BE DELETED. 5. THAT ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN ADDING CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM FATHER ON WHOLLY UNTENABLE, ILLEGAL, ERRONEOUS AND ARBITRARY GROUNDS AND THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE SAME. HENCE, THE ADDITION MAY, AS SUCH, BE DELETED. 6. THAT ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN LAW, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN ADDING CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 17,35,000/- RECEIVED FROM SH. MOHAN LAL AND NIRMALA DEVI ON WHOLLY UNTENABLE, ILLEGAL, ERRONEOUS AND ARBITRARY GROUND AND THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE SAME. HENCE, THE ADDITION MAY, AS SUCH, BE DELETED. ITA NO.1825/DEL/2011 3 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, DELETE OR SUBSTITUTE ANY FORGOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE MADE A STATEMENT THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THE LEGAL ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1 I.E. WITHOUT SERVING NOTICE U/S. 143(2 ) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION ON THE AFORES AID PROPOSITION. 4. KEEPING IN VIEW THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND NO OBJECTION RAISED BY THE LD. DR ON THE SAME, THE LEGAL ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1 IS D ISMISSED, AS NOT PRESSED. 5. AS REGARDS THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN OTHER GROUNDS, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MAINLY STATED THAT THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. HE FURTHER STA TED THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING ALL THE EVIDENCES FOR SUBSTANTIA TING HIS CLAIM. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE ALSO DRAW O UR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE PAGE BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WHIC H HE HAS FILED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FOR SUBSTANTIAT ING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESEE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN THOROUGHLY EXAMIN ED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HENCE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE OT HER ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE AO TO EXAMINE AL L THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSU ES IN DISPUTE ITA NO.1825/DEL/2011 4 AFRESH, ACCORDING TO LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENU E AUTHORITIES AND STATED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AN D REQUESTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE UPHELD BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. AS PER STATEMENT MADE BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE HEARING THAT HE IS NOT PRESSI NG THE LEGAL ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1 I.E. WITHOUT SERVING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT AND NO OBJECTION WAS RAISE D BY THE LD. DR ON THE SAME, ACCORDINGLY, WE HAVE DISMISSED THE GR OUND NO. 1, AS NOT PRESSED, AS AFORESAID. 7.1 AS REGARDS TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS A FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED AL L THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROP ERLY APPRECIATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND NO SUFF ICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE S IN DISPUTE ONLY ON MERITS OF THE CASE, TO THE FILE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO THOROUGHLY EXAMINE ALL THE E VIDENCES ITA NO.1825/DEL/2011 5 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE SAME, AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED ON 15.10.2020. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI