ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Om Nath Tomer, Delhi

ITA 259/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 25920114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEVI SHARAN SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH SMC SMC SMC SMC : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE , VICE , VICE , VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO . .. . 259/DEL/2014 259/DEL/2014 259/DEL/2014 259/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2007 2007 2007 2007 - -- - 08 0808 08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -34(1), ROOM NO.D 34(1), ROOM NO.D 34(1), ROOM NO.D 34(1), ROOM NO.D- -- -3, 3,3, 3, VIKAS BHAWAN, VIKAS BHAWAN, VIKAS BHAWAN, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 002. 110 002. 110 002. 110 002. VS. VS. VS. VS. SHRI OM NATH SHRI OM NATH SHRI OM NATH SHRI OM NATH TOMER, TOMER, TOMER, TOMER, 225 225 225 225- -- -A, POCKET J & K, A, POCKET J & K, A, POCKET J & K, A, POCKET J & K, DILSHAD GARDEN, DILSHAD GARDEN, DILSHAD GARDEN, DILSHAD GARDEN, DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI 110 095. 110 095. 110 095. 110 095. PAN : ACRPT4936H. PAN : ACRPT4936H. PAN : ACRPT4936H. PAN : ACRPT4936H. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DEVI SHARAN SINGH, SR.DR. RESPONDENT BY : NONE. DATE OF HEARING : 14.07.2015 14.07.2015 14.07.2015 14.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.08.2015 11.08.2015 11.08.2015 11.08.2015 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XXVII, NEW DELHI DATED 24 TH OCTOBER, 2013. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE ME, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT AND, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE IS BEING DECIDED EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED DR. 3. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AR E AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND IS AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA-259/DEL/2014 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ESTIMATED INCOME OF RS.3,00,00 0/- IN PLACE OF RS.15,00,000/-. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDER U/S 250 WITHOUT MENTION ING ANY PROPER JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME OF RS.3,00,000/- IN PLACE OF RS.15,00,000/-. 4. LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. HE REFERRED TO PAGE 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE HEARING OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E WAS FIXED MANY A TIMES AND THE ASSESSEE NEVER ATTENDING THE HEARIN G BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESENT AND IS NOT PRESENT EVEN BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO `3 LAKHS AS AGAINST THE EST IMATE OF INCOME MADE AT `15 LAKHS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED DR AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARN ED CIT(A). I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AT `2,12,065/-. IT IS CORRECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ATTENDED EITHER THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE A UTHORITIES. HOWEVER, EVEN IN THE EX PARTE ASSESSMENT, THE INCOME HAS TO BE ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A JUDICIOUS MANNER KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVE N ANY VALID REASON FOR ASSESSING THE ASSESSEE AT `15 LAKHS AS AGAINST `2,12 ,065/- RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ONLY REASON GIVEN WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUNDRY CREDITORS OF `49.97 LAKHS AND EXPE NSES OF `1,81,407/-. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN THE MATTER AND HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FI NDING REGARDING EXISTENCE OF ANY ASSET CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE. I FIND TH AT THE LEARNED ITA-259/DEL/2014 3 CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT WHETHER THE ENTIRE SUNDRY CREDITORS MENTIONED IN THE RETURN WERE FRESH CREDITS R ELATING TO THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR THEY WERE OPENING BALANCES AN D THAT THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT `15 LAKHS WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR EVIDENCE. IN THESE FACTS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT LEARNED CIT(A) WAS REASONABLE IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT `3 LAKHS AND, A CCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH AUGUST, 2015. SD/- (G. (G. (G. (G. C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA ) )) ) VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- -- -34(1), ROOM NO.D 34(1), ROOM NO.D 34(1), ROOM NO.D 34(1), ROOM NO.D- -- -3, 3,3, 3, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110 002. 110 002. 110 002. 110 002. 2. RESPONDENT : SHRI OM NATH TOMER, SHRI OM NATH TOMER, SHRI OM NATH TOMER, SHRI OM NATH TOMER, 225 225 225 225- -- -A, POCKET J & K, DILSHAD GARDEN, A, POCKET J & K, DILSHAD GARDEN, A, POCKET J & K, DILSHAD GARDEN, A, POCKET J & K, DILSHAD GARDEN, DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI 110 095. 110 095. 110 095. 110 095. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR