Anantara Jewels LLP, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward 52(4), New Delhi

ITA 2161/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3964 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARUL SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 148; 250; 143(2); 20

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI SMC BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 2160 & 2161/DEL/2019 [ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2014-15 & 2015-16] ANANTARA JEWELS LLP, VS. ITO, WARD 52(4), 1 ST FLOOR, 28, SUNDAR NAGAR NEW DELHI MARKET, SUNDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI 110 003 (PAN: ABCFA7436M) [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY: SHRI M.P. RASTOGI, ADV. & SH. DEEPAK MALIK, ADV. REVENUE BY : MS. PARUL SINGH, SR. DR. ORDER THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX [APPEALS-36], NEW DELHI BOTH DATED 30.01.2019 PER TAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 & 2015-16. SINCE THE I SSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, HENCE, THE APP EALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON O RDER. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 2160/DEL/2019 (AY 2014-15) READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND RAISED AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT HENCE, THE ORDER SO PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE ACT IS UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND BAD IN LAW. 2 2. THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING NON-SPEAKING ORDER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSION MADE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 3. THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 LACS TO THE INCOM E DECLARED ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE PARTNERS DIRECTLY OUT OF CASH SALES ON THE BASI S OF ADMISSION MADE DURING THE POST SURVEY PROCEEDING IN THE ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR DELETE ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 2161/DEL/2019 (AY 2015-16) READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND RAISED AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT HENCE, THE ORDER SO PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE ACT IS UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING NON-SPEAKING ORDER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSION MADE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 3 3. THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 20 LACS TO THE INCOM E DECLARED ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE PARTNERS DIRECTLY OUT OF CASH SALES ON THE BASI S OF ADMISSION MADE DURING THE POST SURVEY PROCEEDING IN THE ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE. 4. THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE AO ERRED IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 148 OF TH E ACT, AS THE TIME TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT DID NOT EXPIRED, HENCE THE NOTICE SO ISSUED U/S . 148 OF THE ACT IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR DELETE ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE REITERATED THE CONTENTION RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS A ND STATED THAT IN BOTH THE APPEALS LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE RESPECTI VE IMPUGNED ORDERS WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND RAISED AND S UBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING NON-SPEAKING ORDER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSION MADE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE IN BOTH THE APPEALS, MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRE SH, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSE E, AFTER CONSIDERING EACH AND EVERY ASPECT OF THE MATTER ALO NGWITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY PASSING A SPEAKING O RDER. 4 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNE D ORDER. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE I AM SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. FOR THE SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL, I AM DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS COUNSEL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A) ON 23.04.2020 AT 10.00 AM FOR HEARING. THERE IS NO NEED TO ISSUE THE NOTICE BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSEE, SINCE THIS ORDER HAS ALREADY BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESS EE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 02.03.2020. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:02-03-2020 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) ASST. REGISTRAR, 5. DR ITAT, NEW DELHI