RUPESH BISHNOI, NEW DELHI V. ITO, WARD- 2(2), MEERUT

ITA 2483/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0112 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM ITA NO. 2483 /DEL/201 8 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2014 - 15 RUPESH BISHNOI, C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADV., F - 26/ 124, SECTOR - 7, ROHINI, DELHI - 110085 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), MEERUT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AFUPB5240G ASSESSEE BY : SH . KAPIL GOEL, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. SURENDER PAL , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.09 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT : 20 .09 .201 8 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13 .02.2018 OF LD. CIT(A ) , MEERUT . 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BE EN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, ID CIT - A ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ACTION OF ID AO IN APPLYING SECTION 115BBE WHICH IS OUT RIGHTLY BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, ID CIT - A ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FILED U/S 154 BY ASSESSEE WHICH WAS WRONGFULLY REJECTED BY LD. AO. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, ID CIT - A ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING SURRE NDER OF EXEMPT LTCG INCOME U/S 10(38) SHALL BE SUBJECT MATTER OF SECTION 112 ONLY AND CANNOT BE LUMPED IN UNEXPLAINED INCOME PROVISIONS WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO CAPITAL GAINS TRANSACTION. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ADD/ALTER ANY/ALL GROU NDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO . 2483 /DE L/2018 RUPESH BISHNOI 2 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED A NON - SPEAKING ORDER AND HE NEITHER HAD CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE NOR GIV EN ANY REASON FOR CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO. 4. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, T HE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS NOT ICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND SIMPLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL RAISING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS STATED IN PARA 2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD AS TO WHAT WERE THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6 . IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ( ORDER PRON OUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT ON 20 /0 9 / 2018 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( SUCHITRA KAMBLE ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER D ATED: 20 /0 9 /2018 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR