Shub Lata Aggarwal, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2191/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61686 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 14-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHUMANA SEN
• Assessee Lawyers: V MOHAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2191/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SHUB LATA AGGARWAL, VS. ITO, WARD 22(4), D/O SH. RAM PARKASH AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI 1291-C, POCKET-I, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI. (PAN/GIR NO.AGSPA0447P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. MOHAN, ADV. REVENUE BY : SMT. SHUMANA SEN, SR.DR ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A)- XXIII, NEW DELHI, DATED 18.03.2010, RELEVANT TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, WHEREBY ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.10,70,000/- BESIDES CHALLENGING HAVING NOT PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 2. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSING OFFICER ON RECEIPT OF IN FORMATION WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ISSUED STATUTORY NO TICES WHICH ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER REMAINED UN COMPLIED WITH, SO HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.10,70,000/- WHILE PASSING ORDER U/S 144 OF THE I .T. ACT, 1961. 3. THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE MATTER IN APPEAL AND ST RONGLY PLEADED BEFORE CIT(A) THAT SINCE ASSESSEE IS RESIDING ABROAD, SO SHE COULD GET INFORMATION ABOUT FIXATION OF THE CASE I.T.A. NO.2046/DEL./2011 (A.Y. : 2006-07) 2 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VERY LATE, DESPITE THA T SHE SENT ALL INFORMATION AND SENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THROUGH SPEED POST ON 12.12.20 07, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER ON 13.12.2007, BUT HE HAS NOT CONSIDERED SUCH MATERIAL SENT TO HIM WHICH CONTAINED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN FILED AND OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS TO ESTABLISH HAVING MADE INVESTMENT IN BONDS AND EXPLAINING THE SOURCE FOR SUCH INVESTMENT. THE, CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E AND PROCEEDED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THIS BE NCH AND PLEADED THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS ASSESSEE WAS RESIDING ABROAD AND WHE N INFORMATION ABOUT THE FIXATION OF THE CASE WAS RECEIVED, SHE ARRANGED TO SEND THE REL ATED DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE RETURN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS DESPA TCHED THROUGH SPEED POST ON 12.12.2007 AND ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER O N 13.12.2007, BUT HE DID NOT CONSIDER THESE DOCUMENTS AND WHEN THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FURN ISHED BEFORE FIST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HE TOO DID NOT CONSIDER THESE DOCUMENTS TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE PROPER OPPORTUNIT Y HAS NOT BEEN AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN ALL MATERIAL FACTS WERE ALREADY THERE ON THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS WITH THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUST ICE AND TO HAVE FAIR PLAY IN THE MATTER, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER BE RESTORED BACK FOR RE- CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE AFRESH AND ASSESSEE SHALL COOPERATE IN CASE MATTER IS RESTORED TO ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREAS, LD.DR RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PLEADED FOR ITS CONFIRMATION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT SINCE APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND CIT(A) HAS APPROPRIATELY I.T.A. NO.2046/DEL./2011 (A.Y. : 2006-07) 3 CONSIDERED SUCH DOCUMENT, BUT DID NOT ACCEPT GIVING VALID REASON. THEREFORE, HIS ACTION SHOULD BE UPHELD AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, CONSIDERED MATERIA L ON RECORD AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE FINALIZATION OF THE ASSESSMENT AND SUCH DOCUMENTS WERE FILED ALSO BEFORE CIT(A), WHO APPEA RS TO HAVE NOT APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED SUCH DOCUMENTS ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSE SSEE ENCLOSED THE COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME HAVING BEEN FILED ON 31.3.2006, WHICH WA S ACCOMPANIED WITH ACCOUNTS STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER DETAILS AND DOC UMENTS OF INVESTMENTS WERE ALSO FURNISHED. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS, CIRCUMST ANCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE DESERVES OPPORTUNIT Y BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE CERTAIN VITAL DOCUMENTS WERE PLACED ON RECORD WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. THEREFORE, WHILE ACCEPTING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK ON TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE CASE AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS EXPECTED THAT ASSESSEE SHALL COOPERATE WHEN CASE IS TAKEN UP FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT, AS UNDERTAKEN BY HER COUNSEL. I.T.A. NO.2046/DEL./2011 (A.Y. : 2006-07) 4 6. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE GE TS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT SOON AFTER THE CONC LUSION OF THE HEARING ON 21.05.2012. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : MAY , 2012 SKB COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXIII NEW DELHI. 5. CIT(ITAT) DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT