Parvin Bansal, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 62(4), New Delhi

ITA 2693/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5398 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V K MOHINDRU
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; 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. 2693/DEL/2019 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11] PARVIN BANSAL, VS. ITO, WARD 62(4), E-393, JJ COLONY NEW DELHI ANANDVAS SHAKARPUR, NEW DELHI 110 034 (PAN: ALSPB0898C) [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V.K. MOHINDRU, ADVOCATE 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-20], NEW D ELHI DATED 22.01.2019 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS BAD BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE AND LEAD EVIDENCE. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW IN PRESUMING TH E SERVICE OF THE NOTICES AS ALLEGED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WIT HOUT ASCERTAINING THE FACT AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICES HAV E BEEN SENT AT CORRECT AND PROPER ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT AS SUCH ASSESSMENT MADE THERE-UNDER IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LI ABLE TO BE QUASHED. 3. THAT APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, ADD, DELETE OR MODIFIES ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 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 2 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 29.04.2020 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 19.02.2020. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:19-02-2020 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) ASST. REGISTRAR, 5. DR ITAT, NEW DELHI 3