Reena Sehgal, Delhi V. ITO WARD 62(2), New Delhi

ITA 2721/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6701 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DLEHI BEFORE : SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2721/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 REENA SEHGAL, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, F-100, KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI. WARD 62(2), NEW DE LHI. PAN : AQNPS5567R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. UPVAN GUPTA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: MS. RINKU SINGH, SR. DR. DATE OF HEARING : 05.02.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.02.2020 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2019 OF CIT(A) -38, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ASSAILED O N THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX (APPEALS)-38, NEW DELHI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS LEARNED CIT(A) UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT), IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB-INITIO. 2. BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING A DDITIONS TO 2 INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.16,70,000/- PERTAINING TO CA SH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT. 3. BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO P RODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE CIT(A). 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIO N WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE ADJOURNMENT REQUEST WAS WITHDRAWN AND T HE LD. AR, INVITING ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE FOR THE DATE OF HEARING BEFORE T HE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UN- REPRESENTED. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS LIMITED PRAYER THAT THE ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) IN ORDER TO GRANT A N EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3. CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, LD . SR. DR DID NOT OPPOSE THE REQUEST. 4. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT CERTAIN DEPOS ITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REQUIRED TO BE ADDRESS ED. FOR WANT OF REPRESENTATION, THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BY AN ORDER U/S. 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT. BEFORE THE LD. 3 CIT(A) ALSO, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UN-REPRESENTED. IN VIEW THEREOF AND IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, THE IMPUGNED O RDER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPE AKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PLACE FULL FA CTS BEFORE HIM, WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL CONSIDER AT THE TIME OF HEARING AF TER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD . THE ASSESSEE IN HIS OWN INTEREST IS ADVISED TO MAKE FULL AND PROPER REP RESENTATION BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY AND NOT TO ABUSE THE TRUST REPOSED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. SD.0 (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 06/02/2020 AKS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI