Yatendra Kumar, Meerut V. ITOP, Ward-2(4), Meerut

ITA 249/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9601 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PKE
• Assessee Lawyers: V K GOEL CA MS EKTA VISHNOI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 249/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 YATENDRA KUMAR, VS. ITO, WARD 2(4), VILLAGE AND POST KAJIPUR HAPUR MEERUT ROAD, MEERUT (UP) (PAN: BBYPK6652E) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. V.K. GOEL, CA REVENUE BY : MS. EKTA VISHNOI, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.6.2018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), MEERUT RELATING TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2013-14 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES IS ARBITRA RY, UNJUST, ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW BECAUSE THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN PASSING IN ORDER. 2. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITO IS ILLEGAL, CONTRA RY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHICH H AS BEEN WRONGLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY. 3. THAT ITO/CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSING THE INCOME OF RS. 20,43,800/- AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS I N BANK. 4. THAT LD. AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSING THE DEPOSITS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 5. THAT THE CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMIN G THE INCOME, ASSESSED BY THE ITO AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT RS. 20,43,800/-. 2 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE / AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG OF APPEAL. 7. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE ORDER AS PASSE D BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DEMAND SO CREATED THEREON INCLUDING INTEREST IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING THE ORDERS WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD AND WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NO T QUASHING THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY AO U /S 144/147 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, HE CONFIRMED THE SAID EXPARTE ORDER O F THE AO. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE RE MITTED BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND CONS IDER ALL THE DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCES OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN VARIOUS OPPORT UNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NON-COOPERATIVE . 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT ASSESSEE REMAINED NON-COOPERATIVE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE THE AO. I FURTHER FIND THAT AO HAS PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER DATED 09.10.2017 U/S. 147/144 OF THE ACT, WHI CH IN MY OPINION, IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JU STICE AND IT IS AN ERRONEOUS APPROACH. HOWEVER, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE UNDERTAKES TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND WILL COOPERATE IN SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF 3 THE APPEAL AS WELL AS NOT SEEK ANY UNNECESSARY AD JOURNMENT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IF THIS BENCH SET ASIDE THE ISSUES TO T HE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES AS EXPLAINED ABOVE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE T HE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR HEARING ON 13.01.2020 AT 10.00 AM WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AF TER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT NO NOTICE FOR HEARING WILL BE ISSUED BY THE LD . CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED THROUGH HIS COUNSEL TO AP PEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 13.01.2020 AT 10.00 AM FOR HEARING TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT IN THE CASE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 01/10/2019. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 01/10/2019 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES 4