Hawa Singh, Gurgaon V. ITO, Ward-2(1), Gurgaon

ITA 215/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4749 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADEEP KUMAR MEEL
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVEEN GUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 215 TO 217/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 TO 2010-11 HAWA SINGH, VS. ITO, WARD 2(1), S/O SH. BHARAT SINGH GURGAON DAMDAMA ROAD, SUSHIL NAGAR, SOHNA, DISTT. GURGAON (PAN: CFGPS5489L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. NAVEEN GUPTA, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. PRADEEP KUMAR MEEL, SR. DR . ORDER THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 03.11.2017 OF THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2010-11. SINCE THE COMMON IMPUGNED ORDE R HAS BEEN PASSED, THEREFORE, I AM DECIDING THESE APPEALS BY T HIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, BY DEALING WITH ITA NO . 215/DEL/18 (AY 2008-09), 2. 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. 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, HA S STATED THAT AO HAS NOT GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT EVEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO REJECTED THE APPLICATION FO R SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS UNDER RULE 46A, AS A RESULT THEREOF, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BEFORE HIM. 2 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS. I FIND ASSESSEE HAS FILED A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A, WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT LARGE NUMBE R OF OPPORTUNITIES WERE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO AND AS SUCH THERE IS NO GROUND FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE, WHICH IS NOT TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THEREFORE, IN THE INTE REST OF JUSTICE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/R 46A NEEDS TO BE ADMITTED. HENCE, I DIRECT THE AO TO ADMIT THE ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCES AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENT WHICH THE ASSESSEE WOULD LIK E TO FILE. ACCORDINGLY, I REMIT BACK THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AS PER LAW, AFTER CONSIDERI NG ALL THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSE SSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE A SSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FILE ALL THE DOCUMENTS/ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCSE BEFORE THE AO AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ADJOURNMENT UNNECESSARY. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29-10-2018. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29-10-2018 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. 29 3