Sh. Pravin Juneja (HUF), New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2632/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 263220114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS ANURADHA MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: V K AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Additional evidence
• Section: 142(1); 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2631/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06) M/S BHA ASSOCIATES (P) LTD. VS. DCIT C/O. M/S RRA TAXINDIA CENTRAL CIRCLE-(4), D-28 SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI.110049 PAN: AABCB4540L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A .NO.-2632/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06) SHRI PRAVIN JUNEJA (HUF) VS. DCIT C/O. M/S RRA TAXINDIA CENTRAL CIRCLE-(4), D-28 SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI.110049 PAN: AACHP7670P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY:-SH. V. K. AGGARWAL, CA. REVENUE BY:-MRS. ANURADHA MISHRA, CIT. DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV JM. THE PRESENT TWO APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANC E OF ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF EVEN DATE I.E. 30.03 .2012 PASSED IN A.Y. 2005- 2 06 BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ON RESPECTIVE APPEALS O F APPELLANTS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMIT TED THAT IN GROUND NO. 2, ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE AO WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THERE FORE, IMPUGNED ORDERS IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES DESERVE TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION OF ALL THE ISSUES. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT, WAS CARRIE D OUT ON OMAXE GROUP AND THE PEARL GROUP OF CASES ON 22.09.2005. THE OFF ICE PREMISES AS WELL AS RESIDENCE OF THE DIRECTORS AND EMPLOYEES WERE ALSO COVERED UNDER THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION. THE AO FIRST TIME ISSUED A N OTICE U/S 153A/153C ON 13.11.2007 I.E. ALMOST AFTER MORE THAN TWO YEARS OF THE SEARCH OPERATION. HE ISSUED A QUESTIONNAIRE U/S 142(1) AND NOTICE U/S 14 3(2) ON 11.12.2007. THE HEARING WAS FIXED FOR 19.12.2007. THE ASSESSMENTS W ERE GOING TO BE TIME BARRED BY THE END OF DECEMBER AND THE AO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ON 28.12.2007, THUS PRACTICALLY AO HAS GRANTED 10 D AYS TIME FOR SUBMITTING THE DETAILS. IT IS THE AO WHO FAILED TO INITIATE TH E PROCEEDINGS WELL IN TIME AND, THEREFORE, COMPLETE DETAILS COULD NOT BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. HE 3 PRAYED THAT IN THIS SITUATION THE IMPUGNED ORDERS B E SET ASIDE AND ALL THESE ISSUES BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR RE-ADJUDIC ATION. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AO, SHE POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEES COULD FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND COU LD EXPLAIN THEIR CASES BUT PAUCITY OF TIME BEFORE THE AO CANNOT BE A GROUND TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 3. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT AO HAS GRANTED PRACT ICALLY 10-15 DAYS TIME TO THE ASSESSEES FOR EXPLAINING THEIR POSITION WITH RE GARD TO THE QUESTIONS ASKED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE. WHEN AO FAILED TO TAKE COGNIZ ANCE OF THE SEARCH MATERIAL FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, HOW HE CAN EXPECT THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD COMPLY THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN 10 DAYS ONLY. IT IS GROSSLY INADEQUATE TIME FOR PREPARING THE DEFENCE AND SUBMITTING THE D ETAILS. FOR THIS SHORT REASON ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORED ALL THESE IS SUES ON THE QUANTUM OF ADDITIONS TO THE FILE OF AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. TH E LD. AO IS DIRECTED TO TAKE UP THE FILES WELL IN TIME SO THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORT UNITIES COULD BE GRANTED TO 4 THE ASSESSEES. THE ASSESSEES WELL BE AT LIBERTY TO SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE OR DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR EXPLANATION. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, BOTH THE APPEAL S ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/11/2013. SD/- SD/- ( G. D. AGRAWAL ) (RAJ PAL YADAV) VICE-PRESIDENT J UDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22/11/2013 *AK VERMA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(APPEALS) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR