Rewti Raman Developers (P) Ltd., Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2188/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6435 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Accommodation entries

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-2188/DEL/2015 REWTI RAMAN DEVELOPERS P.LTD. VS ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2188/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07) REWTI RAMAN DEVELOPERS (P) LTD., 17/56. WEST PUNJABI BAGH, DELHI-110026. PAN-AADCR1509B ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-14(4), C.R.BUILDING, NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. RAJESH KUMAR, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 01.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.12.2016 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2015 OF CIT(A)-7, DELHI PERTAININ G TO 200607 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE SEEKING TIME ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE COUNS EL WAS SUFFERING FROM FEVER. NO ONE WAS PRESENT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION MOVED. TH E APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. CONSIDE RING THE FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED EX-PARTE WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE, T HE LD. SR.DR WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THE DEPARTMENTAL STAND. ACCORDINGLY, AFTER CONSIDE RING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REOCRD AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.SR.DR , THE ADJOURNMENT AP PLICATION WAS REJECTED. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION RETURNED A LOSS INCOME OF RS.42,479/-. THE SAID RET URN WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY WHEREIN THE DECLARED LOSS WAS REDUCED TO RS.31,860/-. SUBSEQUEN TLY ON THE BASIS OF RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM THE DIT(INVESTIGATION) THAT THE ASSESSEE, SH. SURINDER KUMAR JAIN ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER SH.VIRENDRA JAIN WERE FOUND TO BE OPERATING MULTIPL E ACCOUNTS IN VARIOUS BRANCHES TO PLOUGH BACK UNACCOUNTED BLACK MONEY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BU SINESS OF PERSONAL NEEDS SUCH AS PAGE 2 OF 3 I.T.A .NO.-2188/DEL/2015 REWTI RAMAN DEVELOPERS P.LTD. VS ITO PURCHASE OF ASSETS ETC IN THE FORM OF GIFTS, SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, LOANS ETC THE ASSESSMENTS WERE OPENED. THE ASSESSEE WAS PUT TO NO TICE THAT FROM THE FOLLOWING 6 FIRMS, THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OPERAT ED BY THE SAID BROTHERS:- AMOUNT OF SUPPOSED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY (RS.) CHEQUE/ DD/PO NO. DATE OF CHEQUE/DD BANK DETAILS NAME OF COMPANY USED FOR PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY 4,00,000 063476 04.01.2006 BANK OF INDIA KARISHMA I NDUSTRIES LTD. 3,00,000 979863 04.01.2006 BANK OF INDIA PELICON FI NANCE & LEASE LTD. 3,00,000 107601 04.01.2006 BANK OF INDIA HILLRIDGE INVESTMENTS LTD. 3,00,000 004269 06.01.2006 UTI BANK PARISHUDH FINAN CE CO.PVT.LTD. 2,00,000 004271 UTI BANK PARISHUDH FINANCE CO.PVT.LTD. 3,00,000 004272 UTI BANK VOGUE LEASING & FINANCE PVT. LTD. 3.1. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION OF THE ASSES SEE, ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ADDITIONS WERE CHALLENGED IN APPEAL BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE FILED FRESH EVIDENCES BEFORE THE CIT(A) WH ICH WERE REMANDED TO THE AO AND A REMAND REPORT WAS OBTAINED. THE SAID REPORT WAS CO NFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS IT WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE F AILED TO APPEAR AND IN FACT THE LAST NOTICE AS PER PARA 7.7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER CAME BACK WIT H A COMMENT NO SUCH PERSON. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSE SSEE STILL PERSISTS AS EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED THE IMPUGNED O RDER IS SET ASIDE. THE ISSUES ARE RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO CON FRONT THE REMAND REPORT TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IT IS HOPED THAT THE OPPORTUNITY SO PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IS UTILIZED FULLY AND FAIR LY AS FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON PAGE 3 OF 3 I.T.A .NO.-2188/DEL/2015 REWTI RAMAN DEVELOPERS P.LTD. VS ITO RECORD. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AND THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS REJECTED HOLDING REJECTED AND RESTORED TO THE CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH 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