Sunita Kaswan, Hisar V. ITO WARD -04, Hisar

ITA 2569/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3666 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Validity of assessment; Set aside

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI SMC BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2569/DEL/2019 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15] SUNITA KASWAN, VS. ITO, WARD-04 H.NO. 5, DEFENCE COLONY, HISAR, HISAR, HARYANA (PAN: ANPPK2917E) [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY: SH. V. RAJAKUMAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SH. PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS], HISAR DATED 3 1.12.2018 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN : 1. UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT WHICH IS WITHO UT JURISDICTION. 2. CONFIRMING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,84,340/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PASSING THE SPEAKING ORDER ON GROUNDS OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HISAR. BOTH THE ABOVE ACTIONS BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND UNLAWFUL MUST BE QUASHED WITH DIRECTIONS FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF. 2 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT BEING REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A NON-SPEAKING ORDER WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FOR SUBSTANTIATING HER CLAIM, IF THIS B ENCH SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R FRESH ADJUDICATION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE ALSO FILED A SMALL P APER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1-18 IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED THE VARI OUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ON THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE FOR SUBSTANTIATI NG THE CLAIM. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE LEVANT RECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AN D THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF PA PER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1-18 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS; COPY OF REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS; COPY OF SYNDIATE BANK STATEMENT; COPY OF SYNDICATE BANK STA TEMENT BEFORE THE CIT(A) HISAR; COPY OF AUDIT REPORT; COPY OF NOTICE DATED 20.12.16 ISSUED BY AO REGARDING DIFFERENCE OF RS. 693540/- AND COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A). I AM OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH IS A NON-SPEAK ING ORDER AND HENCE, THE SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF L AW. KEEPING IN VIEW THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE MENTIONED ABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT TH E EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ME WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE AO, WHICH REQUIRE THOROUGH INVESTIGATION AT THE LE VEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I AM SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE A SSESSEE. 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 04.03.2020. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:04-03-2020 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) ASST. REGISTRAR, 5. DR ITAT, NEW DELHI 4