M/s Triumph Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2071/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6942 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ ANAND
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2071/DEL/2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2071/DEL/2013 A.Y. : 2004-05 M/S TRIUMPH MERCANTILE PRIVATE LTD., Z-72, BASEMENT, OKHLA INDL. ESTATE, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI 20 (PAN: AAACT3629D) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), ROOM NO. 147, CR BLDG., IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI-2 (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SH. MANOJ ANAND, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. S .K. JAI N, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 09-02-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 12-02-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19, NEW DELHI DATED 31.1.2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON THE FOLLOW ING CONCISE GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19 (CI T (A)) IS BAD BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS ULS 68 OF RS. 25,02,560/- WITHOUT AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE P ARTIES ITA NO. 2071/DEL/2013 2 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY NOT CONSIDERING THE RECEIVING OF SUMMONS BY A PARTY AS PROOF OF IDENTITY OF THE PARTY. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY IGNORING THE EVIDENCE AS WERE PRODUCED DURING APPELLANT PROC EEDINGS WHICH UNDOUBTEDLY ESTABLISHES THE IDENTITY, CAPACITY AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY NOT PROVIDING THE PARTICULARS OF INVESTIGATIVE WING'S O FFICER DESPITE A SPECIFIC REQUEST MADE FOR IT. HERE IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT REPORT OF INVESTIGATIVE WING WAS THE SUBSTANTIVE BASIS FOR ADDITION. 6. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROC EEDING ULS 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND O R ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIE S ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT BEING REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS ULS 68 OF RS. 25,02,560/- WITHOUT AFFORDING REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE LE ARNED CIT (A) HAS ALSO ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY NOT CONSIDERING THE REC EIVING OF SUMMONS BY A PARTY AS PROOF OF IDENTITY OF THE PARTY. IT WAS FUR THER STATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL ITA NO. 2071/DEL/2013 3 OF THE ASSESSEE THAT LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED, BOT H ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY IGNORING THE EVIDENCE AS WERE PRODUCED DURING APPEL LANT PROCEEDINGS WHICH UNDOUBTEDLY ESTABLISHES THE IDENTITY, CAPACITY AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSID ERATION WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO GIVE FULL OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSE E AND CONSIDER THE SUBMISSION AND THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AFRESH. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR OPPOSED THE AFORESAID RE QUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. HE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS THROUGHOUT MADE THE CONTENTION THAT AO HAS NOT GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS / EVIDENCES OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, IS VERY ESSENTIAL. THEREFORE, IN THE INTE REST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO D ECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSES SEE OF BEING HEARD. THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDE NCES, IF ANY, TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AFRESH AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PRODUCE ALL THE ITA NO. 2071/DEL/2013 4 SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES TO THE AO, SO THAT AO MAY CONSIDER THE SAME, AS PER RULES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/2/2016. SD/- SD/ [L.P. SAHU] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 12-02-2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR