Shri Vinay Jain, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2518/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0443 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAINA SOIN KAPIL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2518/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 VINAY JAIN, M/S AVJ DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., PLOT C, COMMUNITY CENTRE, ANAND VIHAR, NEW DELHI. PAN: ABRPJ1666P VS DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. NAINA SOIN KAPIL, SR. DR & SHRI J.K. MISHRA, CIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.09.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.09.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2016 OF THE CIT(A)-1, NEW DELHI RELATING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THIS AN EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), THIS APPEAL WAS DECIDE D ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. ITA NO.2518/DEL/2016 2 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADI NG OF BRASS RODS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S JAINEX METAL. HE HAS ALSO RECEIVE D DIRECTORS REMUNERATION FROM M/S AVJ DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND AVJ DEVELOPERS (IN DIA) PVT. LTD. HE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2012 DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.54,87,694/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED TH E ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 31 ST MARCH, 2014 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE AT RS.12,22,77,740/- WHEREIN HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.4,91,90,000/- ON ACC OUNT OF PRESUMPTIVE PROFIT AND RS.6,76,00,050/- ON ACCOUNT OF INITIAL INVESTMENT O N UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS. IN APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A), IN THE EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY HIM, SUSTAINED BOTH THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDI NGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF APPEAL DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN L IMINE WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO PRESENT HIS SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE HIM. 2. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ACTED ARBITRARILY AND UNJUST LY ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO IN LAW IN ES TIMATING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT @ 12% OF THE TURNOVER AGAINST THE RATE OF PROFIT 10% DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF AND CONSEQUENTLY MAKING THE ADDIT ION OF RS 4,91,90,000/- TO THE ACCEPTED ADDITION OF RS.3,69,00,000/- RETURNED INCOME. 3. THE LD CIT (A) CLEARLY ERRED ON THE FACTS AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS 6,76,00,0 50/-AS INITIAL INVESTMENT IN THE UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS. ITA NO.2518/DEL/2016 3 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, DELETE, MODI FY / AMEND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE HONBL E APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE, ON THE BASIS OF THE SURVEY CONDUCTED AND ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF THE ASSESSEE, MADE ADDITION OF RS.4,91,90,000/- ON ACCO UNT OF PRESUMPTIVE PROFIT AND ADDITION OF RS.6,76,00,050/- ON ACCOUNT OF INITIAL INVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS. SINCE, DESPITE OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED BY THE CIT(A), THERE WAS NON- COMPLIANCE BEFORE HIM, THE LD.CIT(A), IN THE EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY HIM, SUSTAINED BOTH THE ADDITIONS AND DISMISSED THE APPE AL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE A ND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO GRANT ONE FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEES TO SUB STANTIATE HIS CASE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACT AND LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HER EBY DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITHOUT SEEKING ANY ADJOURNMENT UNDER ANY PR ETEXT AND SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE, FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) IS AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS PER LAW. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.2518/DEL/2016 4 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 2.09.2019. SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019 DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI