Padam Lal Dua, Faridabad V. ITO, Faridabad

ITA 2007/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6514 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 27-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D C GARG
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Retraction
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-3 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2007/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) PADAM LAL DUA, H.NO.573, SECTOR-49, FARIDABAD. PAN-ADJPD2281J ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SH.D.C.GARG, CA REVENUE BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 27 .09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 3 .1 2 .2016 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2016 OF THE CIT(A), FARIDABAD PER TAINING TO 2011-12 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), FARIDABAD, HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 26,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPO SIT, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT WIFE OF THE APPE LLANT WAS SUFFERING WITH CANCER AND REMAINED HOSPITALISED DURING THE PERIOD OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS), FARIDABAD, HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPR ECIATING THE FACT THAT AGAINST ALL CASH DEPOSITS, THE APPELLANT PREPARED DEMAND DR AFTS. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE PAPERS FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS), FARIDABAD, HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT EXAM INING THE PERSONS IN WHOSE FAVOUR, THOSE DEMAND DRAFTS WERE ISSUED BY THE BANK . 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS), FARIDABAD, HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE IN NOT ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ON 11-12-2015. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR VARY FROM THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATI ON WAS NOTED TO HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE. IT IS SEEN THAT IN ALL APPEA LS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 26.09.2016 AND 27.09.2016 THE REVENUE HAS MOVED ADJOURNMENTS STATI NG THAT THE LD. SR. DR IS ON LEAVE. NO ONE WAS PRESENT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION M OVED. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD.AR THE SAID REQUEST WAS REJECTED AS IT WAS FOUND I.T .A .NO.-2007/DEL/2016 PAGE 2 OF 7 THAT THE APPEAL COULD BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WITHOUT IN ANY MANNER ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE INTERESTS OF THE REV ENUE. 3. ADDRESSING THE FACTS, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASS ESSEES WIFE WAS SUFFERING FROM CANCER FROM SEPTEMBER 2012 ITSELF. MEDICAL REPORTS PERTAINING TO THE SPECIFIC PERIOD WERE RELIED UPON. THE COPIES ARE PLACED AT PAGES 27 TO 49 OF THE PAPE R BOOK. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THESE FACTS, THE ASSE SSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A). IN VIEW THEREOF, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE OPPORTUNITIES WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BEFORE THE AO REMAINED UNCOMPLIE D WITH AND AN ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 WAS PASSED. IT WAS HIS LIMITED PRAYER THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE AO FOR A PROPER APPRECIATION AND ADJUDICATION OF FACTS. THE LD.AR GAVE HIS ORAL UNDERTAKING THAT IN THE EVENTUALITY THE ISSUES ARE RESTORED THE ASSESSEE WO ULD FULLY PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS. 3.1. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSE E RETURNED AN INCOME ON SAHAJ OF RS.1,27,980/-. THE SAID RETURN WAS PICKED FOR SCRU TINY UNDER CASS. AS A RESULT THEREOF, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS OF RS .26,50,000/- IN THE ASSESSEES SAVING ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH THE ING VYASA BANK LTD. SIN CE NO EXPLANATION WAS AFFORDED, ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT WAS MADE BY THE AO IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY T HE ASSESSEE, REPRESENTED THROUGH A COUNSEL RELIED UPON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE EVIDENCES FILED. SINCE AS PER RECORD, NO APPLICATION SEEKING ADMISSION OF FRESH EVIDENCE S UNDER RULE 46A WAS FILED, THE EVIDENCES WERE CONSIDERED AS NOT ADMISSIBLE BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AND THE ADDITIONS WERE SUSTAINED. 5. IN THE AFORE-MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES AND CONSIDERING GROUND NO.4 RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ALONGWITH THE PRAYER O F THE LD.AR, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER CANNOT BE UPHELD. THE RECORD SHOWS T HAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) HAS PLEADED HIS WIFES ILLNESS AS REASONS FOR NON-R EPRESENTATION BEFORE THE AO. THIS FACT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS EXTR ACTED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER:- I.T .A .NO.-2007/DEL/2016 PAGE 3 OF 7 4. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD.A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING THE IMPUGN ED ASSESSMENT ORDER MAKING ADDITION WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD BECAUSE HE KNOW VERY WELL THAT WIFE OF ASSESSEE IS SUFFERING F ROM CANCER. THE ASSESSEE WIFE EVALUATED WITH P ET-CT REVEALED HYPERMATABOLIC LEFT BREAST MASS LESION CONSISTENT WITH MALIGNANT PATHOLOGY, MULTIPLE HYPER MATABOLIC LEFT AUXILIARY NODE ARE LIKELY METASTATIC & INVASION OF OVERLYING SKIN, SUBCUTANEOUS TISSUE COMPLEX WITH RETRACTION OF NIPPLE. SHE WAS DIAGNOS ED AS CASE OF CARCINOMA BREAST LEFT (LABC). AS LD.A.O. MENTION THAT HE ISSUED NOTICE NUMBER OF TIMES BUT WE WANT TO CLEARED THAT THEY ARE NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE MOST OF THE TIME THE ASSESSEE HOUSE WAS FOUND LOCKED. THE ASSESSEE WAS BUSY IN SAVING THE LIFE OF HIS LIFE PARTNER CHANDER KANTA DUA AND HIS MOSTL Y TIME SPENT IN HOSPITAL FOR TREATMENT OF HER WIFE IN NCR (FARIDABAD & DELHI) HO SPITAL, AT LAST THE NOTICE WAS SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ASAIN HOSPITAL WHEN HE IS ATTENDING HER WIFE. EVEN THE LD.AO NOT TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM OF THE ASSE SSEE. (EMPHASIS PROVIDED) 5.1. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS ALSO BEEN PASSED EX-PARTE U/S 144 ALONGWITH THE PLEADING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO AS HE REMAINED PRE-OCCUPIED WITH HIS WIFES ILLNESS, ADMITTEDLY REASONS JUSTIFYING ADMISSION OF FRESH EVIDENCES WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THE FRESH EVIDENCES SOUGHT TO BE PLACED ON RECORD WERE REJECT ED FOR WANT OF AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION BEING MOVED BY THE LD. COUNSEL WHO DRAFTED THE APPE AL. I FIND THAT THE HYPER TECHNICAL VIEW TAKEN BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN OUTRIGHT LY REJECTING THE APPEAL CANNOT BE UPHELD. WHILE SO HOLDING, I ALSO RECORD MY ANGUISH AT THE F ALLING STANDARDS OF DRAFTING AND BASIC LEVEL OF LEGAL KNOWLEDGE EVIDENCED IN THE FAILURE TO EVEN FILE AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION. NOTING THAT IT IS WELL-ACCEPTED THAT THE JUSTICE DISPENSAT ION REQUIRES THAT EVERY PERSON IS PRESUMED TO KNOW THE LAW, I AM PAINED TO OBSERVE THAT THE TRUTH IS OTHERWISE. THE SAID PRESUMPTION, I FIND CAN BE SAID TO BE MISPLACED ESPECIALLY IN RESPECT T O FOLLOWING THE LAWS RELATING TO PLEADINGS BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES. BY ITS VERY NATURE TAX PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT ADVERSORIAL AND QUASI- JUDICIAL IN ITS NATURE. IT MAY NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO REFER TO THE WORDS OF WISDOM ADDRESSED BY THE APEX COURT IN MARIA MARGARIDA SEQUERIA FERNANDES & ORS. VS ERASMO JACK DE SEQUERIA (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR 2012 (3) SCALE 550 WHICH NECESSARILY NEEDS TO BE KEP IN MIND DURING ALL JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS THAT, TRUTH IS THE CHERISHED IDEAL AND ETHOS OF INDIA AND TRUTH ALONE HAS TO BE THE FOUNDATION OF J USTICE AND AT ALL LEVELS THE JUDGES HAVE TO I.T .A .NO.-2007/DEL/2016 PAGE 4 OF 7 SERIOUSLY ENGAGE THEMSELVES IN THE JOURNEY OF DISCO VERING THE TRUTH. THE APEX COURT REMINDED THAT JUDGES IN INDIA CANNOT SIMPLY SIT AS MERE UMPIRES IN A CONTEST BETWEEN TWO PARTIES AND MERELY DECLARE AT THE END OF THE COMBAT WHO HAS WON AND WHO HAS LOST. THE JUDGE, IT HAS BEEN HELD, MUST TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE I N THE PROCEEDINGS IN FINDING THE TRUTH WHILE ADMINISTERING JUSTICE. THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE APEX COURT WITH RESPECT TO THE MANNER OF ADMINISTERING JUSTICE IS ALL THE MORE REL EVANT FOR QUASI JUDICIAL TAX AUTHORITIES TO FOLLOW. THE TAX ADMINISTRATION IS WELL AWARE THAT IN ITS EFFORTS IN SEEKING TO EXPAND THEIR TAX NET APART FROM DRAWING THE BIG TAX PAYERS IN ITS N ET, SIZEABLE NUMBERS OF MARGINAL TAX PAYERS ARE ALSO ADDED. THESE MARGINAL TAX PAYERS MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE HAVING EITHER SOUND FINANCIAL OR ECONOMIC UNDERSTANDING AND TO PUT IT D IFFERENTLY MAY NOT BE TAX LITERATE. THESE MARGINAL TAX PAYERS ARE EASILY DRAWN TO THE AVAILAB LE EXPERTISE OF TAX PRACTITIONERS WHO MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE EITHER ADVOCATES OR CHARTERED AC COUNTANTS AND MAY BE ONLY TAX RETURN PREPARERS WHO THEMSELVES MAY ALSO NOT BE AWARE OF THE NITTY GRITTIES OF EITHER THE TAX LAWS OR THE RULES. HENCE WHILE HEARING AND DETERMINING ISS UES RAISED BY THE PARTIES STRICTLY AS PER THE RULES THERE MAY BE INADVERTENT PROCEDURAL VIO LATIONS. SUCH FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE MAY THEREFORE BE DUE TO LACK OF SOUND LEGAL KNOWLED GE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE OR AT TIMES DUE TO OVERSIGHT. YET SUCH AN OMISSION MAY IRREPAR ABLY HARM A LITERATE YET A TAX ILLITERATE TAX PAYER FOR NO FAULT OF HIS EXCEPT OF HAVING ENTR USTED HIS TAX BRIEF TO A COUNSEL WHO HIMSELF WAS UNAWARE OF THE PROCEDURES. SINCE TRUTH ALONE I S THE FOUNDATION OF JUSTICE, I AM PAINED TO NOTE AS TO WHAT STOPPED THE LD. COMMISSIONER FROM S IMPLY DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE EVIDENCES IN TERMS OF THE APPROPRIATE RULE. THE TA X ADMINISTRATION CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO REMAIN IN A MODE OF SELF DENIAL OF THE SOCIO-ECONO MIC REALITIES OF THE TIMES WHERE STILL, DESPITE THE BEST EFFORTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE TAX PAYING POPULATION IS NOT NECESSARILY LITERATE LET ALONE TAX LITERATE. NO DOUBT MERE LITE RACY ITSELF IS NOT A GUARANTEE THAT THE PERSON WILL BE BLESSED WITH SOUND FINANCIAL KNOWLEDGE AND A BASIC LEGAL UNDERSTANDING OF TAXING STATUTES BUT ITS LACK DEFINITELY FURTHER COMPOUNDS THE HANDICAP. IT IS A WELL NOTED FACT THAT WHERE THE BEST OF THE MINDS DEVOTED ENTIRELY TO PLU MBING THE HIDDEN DEPTHS OF THIS VAST I.T .A .NO.-2007/DEL/2016 PAGE 5 OF 7 OCEAN ARE OFTEN LEFT TRYING TO GRAPPLE DESPITE THE AVAILABILITY OF BATTERY OF WELL INFORMED LAWYERS AND CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS TO FIND SOLUTIONS TO THE UNEXPECTED UNIMAGINED COMPLEX TAX RELATED ISSUES CROPPING UP WITH EACH CHANGE IN THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS. THUS, TO PRESUME THAT EACH AND EVERY TAX PAYER HAS THE BENEF IT OF THIS UPDATED TAX KNOWLEDGE IS STILL A UTOPIAN EXPECTATION AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY SEEN THA T IN THE CASE OF THE MARGINAL TAX PAYERS EVEN THE BASIC KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS IN THE ADVIS E MADE AVAILABLE ITSELF IS FOUND MISSING. I FIND THE EXPECTATION THUS THAT THE MARGI NAL TAX PAYER IS EQUALLY WELL INFORMED IN THE PRESENT TIMES IS STILL AS OBSERVED A UTOPIAN EXPECT ATION. 5.2. THE TAX ADMINISTRATION CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO B E SO DIVORCED FROM THE REALTIES THAT THE PAINS AND AGONIES OF AN ILL-INFORMED TAX ILLITE RATE PERSON CANNOT BE HEARD AND UNDERSTOOD. THE PAIN OF SUCH A TAX-PAYER IS FURTHER COMPOUNDED BY FACTORS BEYOND HIS CONTROL, AS IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WHERE THE COUNSEL ENTRU STED TO REPRESENT HIM WAS ALSO AN EQUAL NOVICE AS ADMITTEDLY BEING IGNORANT OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURES UNDER WHICH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE COULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED HE FAILED TO EXE RCISE DUE CARE AND ATTENTION. TO MY MIND, THE TAX SO COLLECTED ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE IGNORANCES OF A TAX ILLITERATE TAX PAYER CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE A COLLECTION OF EITHER JUST NOR DUE TAXES COLLECTED BY THE STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASS ESSEE REPRESENTED BY AN EQUALLY IGNORANT COUNSEL, SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATELY GUIDED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE FACT THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WHILE EXERCISIN G HIS DISCRETION REFUSED TO ADMIT EVIDENCE INSPITE OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE BEING SHOWN AS A MATTER OF RECORD IS UNWARRANTED AND ARBITRARY. IT CANNOT BE IGNORED THAT LD. FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY ALSO HAD A DUTY TO DISCHARGE I.E. TO ENSURE THAT ONLY JUST AND FAIR TAXES DUE TO THE STATE MAY BE COLLECTED. WHILE ADJUDICATING AND DETERMINING THE ISSUES, IT CANNOT BE COUNTENANCED THAT THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY IS AFRAID TO GIVE APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS. IN A CASE LIKE THE PRESENT CASE SUCH A DIRECTION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PERCEIVED TO BE NOT G IVEN ON ACCOUNT OF THE FEAR OF BEING CONSIDERED A NEGATIVE REFLECTION ON THE FAIR COND UCT OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THE PERFORMANCE AND DISCHARGE OF DUTIES WOULD NOT B E SAID TO BE FOUND WANTING OR FAULTED I.T .A .NO.-2007/DEL/2016 PAGE 6 OF 7 WITH IF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN THE PERFORMA NCE OF HIS DUTY APPRISES AND GRANTS OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO MEET THE REQUISITE P ROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 46A. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SITTING IN AN AUTHORITATIVE ADJUDICATING POSITION NECESSARILY WOULD HAVE COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND R ULES. HE IS PRESUMED TO HAVE MORE THAN ADEQUATE EXPERIENCE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCUL CATED WITH A SENSE OF PUBLIC SERVICE TO GIVE THE BENEFIT OF HIS LEARNING TO A DISADVANTAGE D TAX PAYER BY PUTTING HIM TO NOTICE INCASE OF VIOLATION OF PROCEDURE, AS IN THE INSTANT CASE T HAT ANY EVIDENCE NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO REQUIRES THAT AN APPLICATION SEEKING FRESH EVID ENCES UNDER RULE 46A WITH REASONS FOR THEIR ADMISSION IS NECESSARY. ANY SUCH OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE FRESH EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A GIVEN DURING THE PROCEEDINGS TO MY MIND, WOULD NOT IN ANY WAY REFLECT ON HIS IMPARTIALITY. IF FRESH EVIDENCE IS BEING RELIED UPON BY AN ASSES SEE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHOUT ANY APPROPRIATE APPLICATIONS UNDER RULE 46 A, IT WOULD BE ARBITRARY TO DENY THE TAX PAYER AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE SAME AS PER LAW . 5.3. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE PRAYER TH AT THE EVIDENCES COULD NOT BE PLACED BEFORE THE AO BECAUSE OF PRE-OCCUPATION OF THE ASSE SSEE WITH ILLNESS OF HIS SPOUSE IS A CONSISTENT FACT ON RECORD. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED WHICH THOUGH REPRODUCED HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVA ILABLE ON RECORD, IS ACCEPTED AND THE FRESH EVIDENCES ARE DIRECTED TO BE ADMITTED. A MARGINAL TAX PAYER, AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, BATTLING WITH UNFORESEEN AND UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E ILLNESS OF A LIFE PARTNER AND FURTHER DISADVANTAGED BY LACK OF PROPER LEGAL ADVISE, SHOU LD HAVE BEEN ASSISTED INSTEAD OF BEING TRAMPLED HEARTLESSLY IN THE NAME OF TECHNICALITIES. THE TECHNICALITIES CAN CO-EXIST WITH A HUMANE APPROACH. WHILE SO HOLDING I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN URGENT NEED TO INCULCATE A SENSE OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND HUMANE APPROACH IN THE TAX ADMINISTRATION AND TO ENSURE THAT THE MARGINAL TAX PAYERS ARE ENCOURAGED, ASSIST ED AND GUIDED ON PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES WITH SOUND ADVI SE INSTEAD OF INSTILLING IN THEM A SENSE OF FEAR AND PANIC AND THUS FORCING THEM AWAY FROM TAX COMPLIANCES AND IN THE I.T .A .NO.-2007/DEL/2016 PAGE 7 OF 7 ARMS OF UNSAVOURY ADVISORS WHO THRIVE AND PREY ON T HIS FEAR OF THE POPULATION. SUCH POSITIVE STEPS TO MY MIND WILL GO A LONG WAY IN ENS URING A TAX COMPLIANT POPULATION. 5.4. ACCORDINGLY, ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE DUE TO HIS WIFES ILLNESS THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRO DUCING THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SE T ASIDE AND THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PERMIT THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONFRONTING THE SAME TO TH E AO AND DIRECTING THE AO TO FILE A REMAND REPORT SHALL CONFRONT THE SAME TO THE ASSESS EE AND THEREAFTER PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSES SEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE OPPORTUNITY SO GRANTED, IT IS HOPED IS NOT ABUSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT FAILING WHICH THE CIT(A) WOULD BE AT LIB ERTY TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD OF DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT NEW DELHI