Rajesh Prasad, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1897/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5202 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S K GOYAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1897/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 RAJESH PRASAD, VS. ITO, WARD 34(1), C-7/116, KESHAV PURAM, NEW DELHI DELHI 110 035 (PAN: ALHPP5132E) ITA NO. 1898/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 KAVITA RANI, VS. ITO, WARD 34(1), C-7/116, KESHAV PRAM, NEW DELHI DELHI 110 035 (PAN: AGYPR2046R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. S.K. GOYAL, CA REVENUE BY : SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR ORDER THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE SEPARATE ASSE SSEES AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS, BOTH DATED 26.10.20 16 OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-12, NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 1897/DEL/2017 READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS. 1,01,705/- U/S. 271(1)(C) WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF 2 INCOME IS TOTALLY WRONG, BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. THE CIT(A) DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL IN A HURRY. 2. THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO AN ANOTHER. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE PRAYS PERMISSION TO ADD, DELE TE OR AMEND ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE ASSURES UNSTINTED COOPERATION IN ALL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF. 5. THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER IS BAD, ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND MUST BE QUASHED. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 1898/DEL/2017 READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS. 1,13,425/- U/S. 271(1)(C) WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IS TOTALLY WRONG, BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. THE CIT(A) DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL IN A HURRY. 2. THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO AN ANOTHER. 3 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE PRAYS PERMISSION TO ADD, DELE TE OR AMEND ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE ASSURES UNSTINTED COOPERATION IN ALL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF. 5. THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER IS BAD, ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND MUST BE QUASHED. 4. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 5. DURING THE HEARING, LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, SH . SK GOYAL, CA HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE IS A SENIOR CITIZEN AND HE R DATE OF BIRTH IS 18.9.1952 AND LIVING ON RENT WITH HER HUSBAND AND H AS SHIFTED HER RESIDENCE MANY TIMES, BUT DID NOT CHANGE HER ADDRES S IN INCOME TAX RECORDS; SHE HAS CORDIAL RELATIONS WITH THE LAND LORD OF HER FLAT NO. C-7/116, KESHAV PURAM, NEW DELHI. SHE WAS RECEIVIN G ALL THE POSTS FROM HER LANDLORD, BUT SHE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NOTI CE SENT BY THE LD. CIT(A) RELATING TO HER APPEAL, THEREFORE, SHE COULD NOT PURSUE THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AN D COULD NOT ENGAGE HER COUNSEL FOR PURSUING THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AGAINST THE ASSESEE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE IS READY TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) A ND ASSURE THE BENCH THAT ASSESSEE WILL NOT SEEK ANY UNNECESSARY A DJOURNMENT, IF THIS BENCH SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FI LE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, AFRESH, AS PER LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS 4 MAY BE SET ASIDE TO LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME A FRESH, AS PER LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. LD. DR OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COU NSEL AND STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT INTIMATED ABOUT HER CH ANGE OF ADDRESS TO THE LD. CIT(A), EVEN IN THE PRESENT APPEAL SHE H AS NOT GIVEN HER NEW ADDRESS. HE APPREHENDED, IF THE MATTER IS SET A SIDE TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND ASSESSEE WILL NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THEN THE IT WILL BE A WASTING OF TIME OF THE LD. CIT(A). T HEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DI SMISSED, BECAUSE THE ASSESEE HAS NOT PROSECUTED THE SAME. 7. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORI TIES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A SENIOR CITIZEN AND REPRESENTED BY HER CA, SH. SK GOYAL, THE AR OF THE ASSESEE WHO HAS THE UNDERTAKING THAT ASSESSEE WILL APPEAR BEFORE TH E LD. FIRST APPELALTE AUTHORITY AND WILL NOT SEEK ANY UNNECESSA RY ADJOURNMENT AND FULLY COOPERATE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, I F THIS BENCH GIVE THE CHANCE TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT THE CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW THE REQUEST OF THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS VERY GENUINE AND ASSESSEE BEING A SENIO R CITIZEN HAVING THE SYMPATHY FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE WRITT EN SUBMISSION BEFORE HIM ABOUT NON-APPEARANCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A). THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE THE ISSUE I N DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION THAT LD. CIT(A) M AY DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, AS PER LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE EXPARTE ORDER AND THE NON-COOPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESS EE THROUGH HIS COUNSEL SH. SK GOYAL, CA IS DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 14.09.2017 AT 10.00 AM AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) IS ALSO DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AFRESH, UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . THERE IS NO 5 NEED TO SEND THE NOTICES TO THE PARTIES, BECAUSE T HIS ORDER HAS ALREADY BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE ASSESSEE APPEALS ARE ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 02-08-2017. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 02-08-2017 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.