Sh. Raj Kumar Singh, Noida V. ITO, Noida

ITA 2759/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4589 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2759/DEL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) SH. RAJ KUMAR SINGH PROP. R.K. SINGH & CO. D-4, SECTOR-31 NOIDA-201301. PAN AFPPS 6584M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), NOIDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. UMESH TAKYAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 25.02.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25.02.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT (APPEALS)-1, NOIDA {CIT(A)} DATED 30.09.2016 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11, CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR 25 TH FEB. 2020, HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. ITA NO.2759/DEL/2017 (ASST. YEAR: 2010-11) PAGE | 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TIME BARRED BY 139 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY STATI NG THAT ASSESSEE WAS SICK AS HE WAS A HEART PATIENT, THEREFORE, APPEAL C OULD NOT HAVE FILED WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD. APPLICATION IS SUPPOR TED BY MEDICAL PRESCRIPTIONS. CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF ASSES SEE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. THE DELAY IN FILI NG THE APPEAL IS THEREFORE CONDONED. 5. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR, WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH E MATTER REQUIRES RE- CONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE A O, VIDE SEPARATE ORDER LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ETC. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED OR DER THAT SEVERAL DATES OF HEARING HAVE BEEN INTIMATED TO ASSESSEE BUT IT APPE ARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THE LD. C IT(A) IN ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED ANY ORDER ON MER ITS GIVING REASONS FOR DECISION IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. IT IS VIOLATION OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE I.T. ITA NO.2759/DEL/2017 (ASST. YEAR: 2010-11) PAGE | 3 ACT, THEREFORE, ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE SUSTA INED IN LAW. EVEN IF ASSESSEE DO NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE L D. CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO PASS THE ORDER ON MERITS GIVING REASONS FOR DECISIO N IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIS FILE WITH DIRECTI ON TO RE-DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY GIVING REAS ONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND BY GIVING REASONS FOR DECISION IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/02/2020 . SD/- S D/- (O.P.KANT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25/02/2020 PK/PS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI