Shri Ram Krishan Jajoo, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2496/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7101 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 16-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 2496/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SH. RAM KRISHAN JAJOO, VS. ITO, WARD 22(1), 46/6, LGF, COMMUNITY CENTRE, NEW DELHI EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI (PAN: AEWPJ6726L) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SATYAJIT GOEL, CA REVENUE BY : SH. PANKAJ VIDYARTHI, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING ON : 16/08/2016 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 05/09/20 16 PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2013 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), NEW DELHI RELA TING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) IS WITHOUT PROPER AN D REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY AND EVEN OTHERWISE SAME IS N OT IN CONFORMITY WITH PROVISIONS OF SEC. 250(6) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2(I). THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 11, 10,000/- 2 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT EVEN THOUGH IDENTITY, 'GENUINENESS 'AND SOURCE WAS EXPLAINED IN THE CONTE XT OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. (II) THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND EVIDENCE ON R ECORD AND IMPUGNED ADDITION IS ON ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY B ASIS. 3(I) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING CLAIM OF SHORT TE RM CAPITAL LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,90,000/- EVEN THOUG H CORRECTNESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM IS NOT IN DISPUTE. (II) THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. (III) THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IS ON ILLEGAL AND ARB ITRARY BASIS AND SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE UNDER THE LAW. 4. THAT THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT J USTIFIED ON FACTS AND SAME ARE BAD IN LAW. 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. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY, HENCE, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE S AME AFRESH, UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF T HE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 5. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECOR DS. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) VI DE PARA NO. 1 HAS ISSUED THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE ARE REPRODUCI NG THE RELEVANT PARA NO. 1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER:- 1. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT PASSED BY ITO, WARD 22(1), NEW DELHI. NOTICE U/S. 250 OF THE ACT, WERE ISSUED TO T HE APPELLANT, THE COMPLIANCE OF WHICH IS SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- DATE OF ISSUE DATE OF HEARING FIXED REMARK 23.9.2013 22.10.2013 NONE ATTENDED 25.10.2013 07.11.2013 APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT RECEIVED. ADJOURNED TO 27.11.2013. 27.11.2013 NONE ATTENDED 6. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSE SSEE AND THE TIME GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN BY THE L D. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS C LAIM BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND AGAINST THE NATURAL JUSTICE. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THIS CASE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE NEEDS TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AS PER LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE SET ASIDE AND RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES IN DISPUT E AFRESH AFTER GIVING 4 ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) AN D DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/09/2016 . SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT) [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 05/09/2016 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