Mr. Santosh Agarwal, Noida V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2099/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3704 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SARAS KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV GOEL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2099/DEL/2017 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010-11 SANTOSH AGARWAL, E-20, SECTOR-6, NOIDA-201301, UTTAR PRADESH VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-49(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AEVPA2903B ASSESSEE BY : SH. SANJEEV GOEL, CA REVENUE BY : SH. SARAS KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 22.01.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24.02.2020 ORDER PER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-18, NEW DELHI DATED 06.02. 2017. 2. FOLLOWING THE GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE CIR CUMSTANCES IN WHICH AN ORDER U/S 144 OF THE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 HAS BEEN PASSED BY ASSUMING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT F ILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEA L IN LIMINE DESPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED WITHIN TIME LIMITS OF SECTION 249(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ON MERITS. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPOR T OF STOLES, SCARFS AND HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INC OME OF RS.15,68,503/- ON 14.06.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE ASSESSMENT HAS ITA NO. 2099/DEL/2017 SANTOSH AGARWAL 2 BEEN COMPLETED BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.72,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD. CIT (A) AGAINST THE ADDITION. THE LD. CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE OWING TO NON-REPRESENTATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSE SSEE AND NON- SUBMISSION OF REQUIRED EXPLANATION FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. THE LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE LIMITATIO N CANNOT BE CONDONED WHERE THE PARTY IS NEGLIGENT AND CALLOUS IN FILING THE REPLIES. 4. BEFORE US DURING THE HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT OWING TO CHANGE OF ADDRESS, THE NOTICES COULD NOT BE RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND PLEADED THAT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY HE WOULD COMPLY T O ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AUTHORITIES. THE LD. DR IN PRINCIPLE OBJECTE D FOR REMANDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE LD. CIT (A). 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AND HOLD THAT INTEREST OF JUSTICE WOULD BE WELL SERVED IF TH E ASSESSEE IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT THE CASE. HENCE, KEEPING I N VIEW THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE HEREBY REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON MERITS BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. WE HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY COMPLY WITH ALL THE PROCEDURES PERTAINING TO CONDONATION OF DELAY AND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE R EVENUE AUTHORITIES PERTAINING TO MERITS OF THE CASE AND NOT TO SEEK AN Y UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENTS. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/02/2020. SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH) (D R. B. R. R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER DATED: 24/02/2020 *SUBODH*