Satyavir Singh, Delhi V. ITO WARD 62(3), New Delhi

ITA 2537/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3966 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ GARG
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI SMC BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2537/DEL/2019 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11] SATYAVIR SINGH VS. ITO, WARD 62(3), 50, VILLAGE JINDPUR, NEW DELHI P.O. MUKHMAILPUR, DELHI 110 036 (PAN: AXHPS9319N) [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANOJ GARG, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR . DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS-38], NEW D ELHI DATED 17.1.2019 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO FOR IN ITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE B Y THE AO FOR NOT MAKING PROPER ENQUIRY BEFORE MAKING ADDI TION U/S. 68. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF R S. 12,73,400/- FOR CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK U/S. 68 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT ON THE BASIS OF ONLY BLANK ACCOUNT. 4. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DISMISSING THE APPEAL EXPARTE IS BAD IN LAW, AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NON CONSIDERATION OF THE AP PEAL ON MERITS MAKES THE IMPUGNED ORDER BAD IN LAW AND LIA BLE TO BE QUASHED. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR THE PERMISSION TO ADD , MODIFY, ALTER OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EXPARTE IMPUGNED ORDER WI THOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. H E REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNE D ORDER. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE I AM SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HERD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4.1 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE NON-COOPERATION OF THE A SSESSEE, I AM DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS COUNSEL TO APPEA R BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 04.05.2020 AT 10.00 AM FOR HEARING. THERE IS NO NEED TO ISSUE THE NOTICE BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESS EE, SINCE THIS ORDER HAS ALREADY BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT . 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 02.03.2020. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:02-03-2020 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) ASST. REGISTRAR, 5. DR ITAT, NEW DELHI