Nina Luthra, Noida V. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Noida

ITA 245/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7196 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: KIMMI DAWAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.245/DEL./2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 SMT. NINA LUTHRA, F.NO.20, SECTOR-37, NOIDA. PAN ACTPL6023F VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), NOIDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MS. KIMMI DAWAR, C.A. FOR REVENUE : SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 11 .0 7 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 .0 7 .2018 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-1, NOIDA, DATED 01.12.2 017, FOR THE A.Y. 2011-2012. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.1 LA KH ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 2 ITA.NO.245/DEL./2018 SMT. NINA LUTHRA, NOIDA. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT ORIGINALLY THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED VIDE ORDER DATED 27.01.2016. HOWEVER, ASSES SEE MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR RECALLING OF THE SAID ORDER STAT ING THAT GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT COMPLETELY ADJUD ICATED AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REMAIN UNADJUDIC ATED. THE LD. CIT(A) FIXED THE MATTER FOR HEARING AGAIN AND O N THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS ADJOURNED TO 27.11.2017, BU T, ON THAT DATE, THERE WERE NO RESPONSE FROM THE SIDE OF THE A SSESSEE. THE MATTER WAS AGAIN LISTED FOR 01.12.2017 BUT THE COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THOUGH APPEARED BEFORE HIM BUT CHOOSE TO L EAVE HIS OFFICE WITHOUT ARGUING THE CASE AND WITHOUT SEEKING ANY ADJOURNMENT. THE LD. CIT(A), ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM O F THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT TH E LEVEL OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL S UBMITTED THAT NO SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THAT NO SPEAKING ORDER HAVE BEEN PASSED. 3 ITA.NO.245/DEL./2018 SMT. NINA LUTHRA, NOIDA. ACCORDING TO SECTION 250(6) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, THE LD. CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO MENTION POINT FOR DETERMINATION AND REASONS FOR DECISION IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER. HOWEVER, SUCH PROV ISION HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH IN THIS CASE. THUS, THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. I, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-1, NOIDA AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-DECI DE THE MATTER/CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, BY MENTIONING POINT FOR DETERMINATION AND REASONS FOR DECISION IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL GIVE REAS ONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) DELHI, DT. 11 TH JULY, 2018. JUDICIAL MEMBER VBP/- 4 ITA.NO.245/DEL./2018 SMT. NINA LUTHRA, NOIDA. COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT SMC BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. // BY ORDER // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR : ITAT DELHI BENCHES : DELHI.