M/s. A.K.G. Associates (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1987/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3667 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: BL GUPTA
• Section: 144; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. NO.1987/D/10 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S A.K.G. ASSOCIATES (P) LTD., VS. ASSTT. CIT, 17/83, THAN SINGH NAGAR, CEN. CIRCLE-16, ANAND PARBAT, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN NO.AACCA 0672P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.L. GUPTA, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.C. GUPTA, DR ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL: AM: THIS APPEAL EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, N EW DELHI, PASSED ON 19.02.2010 IN APPEAL NO.369/06-07, AND IT PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN F IVE GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL. GROUND NO.2 PROJECTS THE MAIN GRIEVANC E OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS STATED THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS INCORRE CT AND UNJUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.50,000/- EVEN WITHO UT ADMITTING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THIS YEAR ON 12.09.2005 DECLARING NIL INCOME. A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBS TANTIATE THE RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH WERE NOT AVAILED OF. THE ASSESSME NT WAS 2 COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AT T OTAL INCOME OF RS.50,000/-. 2.1 AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE MOVED APP EAL BEFORE THE CIT(A)-II, NEW DELHI. HE ALSO FURNISHED A NUMBER O F OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO LEAD EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE GRO UNDS TAKEN BEFORE HIM. HOWEVER, NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE AT THIS STAGE ALSO. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. 2.2 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IN WHICH IT IS M ENTIONED THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUBMISSION, HE WAS UNABLE TO ENTERTA IN THIS GROUND. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UPHELD. ITS CASE IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS BO UND TO GIVE A DEFINITE FINDING ON THE GROUND REGARDING THE ESTIMA TION OF INCOME, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE. 3. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AND IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE BEFORE ANY OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, IT IS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED TH AT THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES MAY BE UPHELD. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED CIT(A) READS AS UNDER:- GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFF ICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.50,000/- IN ORDER U/S 144. I T IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT HAS FILED RETURN OF NIL INCOME WHERE AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT RS.50,000/-. THIS ESTIMATION WAS DONE AS ASSESSEE DID 3 NOT SUBMIT ANY DETAILS. EVEN BEFORE UNDERSIGNED AS MENTIONED EARLIER EXCEPT RAISING THE GROUNDS IN APP EAL MEMO NOTHING HAS BEEN SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS. AS ALREADY MENTIONED, THERE IS NO MEANING FUL COMPLIANCE AND, THEREFORE, I AM NOT HAVING BENEFIT OF ANY ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION BY THE APPELLANT TO DECIDE AS TO WHETHER ESTIMATION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CORRECT OR NOT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM UNABLE TO ENTERTAIN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. THE ESTIMATION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS, THEREFORE, UPHELD. THIS GROU ND IS, THEREFORE, DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. FROM THE AFORESAID ORDER, IT TRANSPIRES THAT HIS FI NDING IS THAT ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM AND IN ABSE NCE OF ANY ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE, HE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CORRECT OR NOT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS DUTY BOUND TO GIVE A DEFINITE FINDING IN THE MA TTER. IN ABSENCE OF THAT, THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO HIS FILE FOR DECIDI NG THE GROUND REGARDING ESTIMATION OF INCOME DE NOVO AFTER HEARIN G THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO MAKE PROPER REPRES ENTATION BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS MATTER. 5. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 01.07 .2010 SOON AFTER THE HEARING WAS COMPLETED. SD/- SD/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( K.G. BANSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DT.01.07.2010. NS 4 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. M/S A.K.G. ASSOCIATES (P) LTD. 17/83, THAN SINGH NAGAR, ANAND PARBAT, NEW DELHI. 2. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -16, NEW DELHI. 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A), NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI).