Sh. Ram Kumar, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2774/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6407 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 31-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2774/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SH. RAM KUMAR, VS. ITO, WARD 24(3) C/O ARUN KISHORE & CO., NEW DELHI CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, D-25, FF, LAJPAT NAGAR-II, NEW DELHI 110 0024 (PAN: AKBPK5171H) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. ARUN KISHORE, FCA REVENUE BY : NONE ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XXIII, NEW DELH I RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT APPEALS 23 DT. 18.11.2009 IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND OPPOSED TO FACTS. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A LAST OPPORTUNITY BE ACCORDED TO THE APPELLANT TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO, SINCE AGRICULTURE INCOME HAS BEEN ALREADY ACCEPTED IN A.Y. 2005-06 AT RS 39.54 LACS AND RS 14.93 LACS FOR A.Y. 2008-09. 2 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3608100/- AS UNEXPLAINED AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND NOT AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 4. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS, TH E ADDITION OF RS.3608100/- HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF APPELLANT'S OWN DECLARATION BUT WITHOUT PLACING ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF HAVING EARNED INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 5. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS, SECTION 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, OR 69D OF THE IT ACT 1961 DEALING WITH ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE SINCE NO CASH CREDIT, MONEY /BULLION/ JEWELLERY OR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THAT THE NET INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BE REDUCED BY RS.3608100/-. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HE RE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE AS SESSEE HAS STATED THAT REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAS PASSED THE ORDER IN V IOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND WITHOUT GIVING ADE QUATE TIME AND OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE A ND TO FILE ITS REPLIES AND CLARIFICATIONS. HE REQUESTED THAT THE ASSESSE E IS HAVING ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES WHICH CAN BE PRODUCED BEFORE TH E AO, IF THIS BENCH GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUB STANTIATE HIS CASE. HE REQUESTED THAT LAST OPPORTUNITY MAY BE ACCORDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO, S INCE AGRICULTURE INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED IN AY 2005-06 AT R S. 39.54 LACS AND RS. 14.93 LACS FOR AY 2008-09. 4. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE PARTIES WER E SENT, IN SPITE OF THE SAME, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND A GAIN TO THE REVENUE, THEREFORE, I AM DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPART E QUA REVENUE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSING THE RECORDS . 5. I HAVE HEARD LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CAR EFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I FIND THAT AO HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH PROPER EXP LANATION, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN HIS SUPPORT OF HAVING THE A GRICULTURAL 4 INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES. I N MY CONSIDERED VIEW THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED AFRESH AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE DOCUMENTS / EVIDENCES. T HEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISP UTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, AS PER LAW, AFTER CONSIDER ING ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS DI RECTED TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE AO DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E HIM AND NOT TO TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT IN THE CASE AND AL SO PRODUCE ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO TO SUBSTANTIA TE HIS CLAIM. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/12/2016 . SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 27/12/2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES 5