Mr. Anil Bansal, Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2783/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6774 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: C P SINGH ASSTT TO
• Section: 148; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-II, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2783/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ANIL BANSAL, 208, 3 RD FLOOR, S-524, SHAKARPUR, VIKAS MARG, DELHI VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI PAN : AAFPD 2542 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI C. P. SINGH, ASSTT. TO AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI F.R. MEENA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 16-11-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-02-2017 O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, J.M. : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2016 OF THE CIT(A)-30, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2007-08 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED BY SUSTAIN ING THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.147 / 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ADMITTEDLY, THE PROCEEDINGS, ARE NOTHING BUT REVIEW OF EARLIER DECISION, WERE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE/EXPLANATIONS A LREADY ON RECORD AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE DROPPED AFTER A MARATHON ARGUMENTS. 2. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED BY NOT QUAS HING THE ORDER WHEN THERE WAS NO DISPOSAL - OFF OBJECTIONS IN THE MANNE R IT WAS OBJECTED BY APPELLANT. 3. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED EVEN ON MER ITS THAT THE OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONAL CHARGES RS.93000/- AND RENT PAYABLE RS .108623/- WERE ADDED IN THE CURRENT YEAR'S INCOME, ALTHOUGH THESE ARE BROUG HT FORWARD EXCEPT RS.39000/- RENT PAYABLE FOR THE YEAR DIRECTLY CREDI TED IN THE LANDLORD A/C, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, ALTER OR TO RAISE ANY OTHER GROUND AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BY HIS COUNSEL. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. SR.DR, IT WAS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO PRO CEED WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL EX- PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT. 3. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT THE A SSESSEE CHALLENGED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ADDITION OF RS.2,01,623/- MADE B Y THE AO BY AN ORDER U/S 2 ITA NO.2783/DEL/2016 254/143(3) WHEREIN ON THE CHALLENGE OF THE ASSESSEE POSED TO THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2012 OF THE CIT(A), THE ITAT REMITTED THE ISS UE BACK TO THE AO BY AN ORDER DATED 09.08.2012 IN ITA NO.1544/DEL/2012 FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M /S GKN DRIVESHAFF. HOWEVER, THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED AS THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNR EPRESENTED LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, THE LD. SR. DR WAS REQUIRED TO POINT OUT AS TO WHAT SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD.CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE AS PER RECORD IS FOUND TO HAVE MOVED ADJOU RNMENT BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND ALSO REQUESTED FOR DISPOSAL OF OBJECTIONS. THE DISCUSSI ON IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS FULL OF THE DETAILS OF WHAT TRANSPIRED IN THE ORIGINAL ROUN D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT(A) AND THE ITAT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCUSS ION ON WHAT TRANSPIRED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET-ASID E AND RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D. WHILE SO DIRECTING, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ADJOURNMENT MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E THROUGH HIS COUNSEL HAS BEEN REJECTED. IT IS HOPE THAT OPPORTUNITY SO PROVIDED IN GOOD FAITH TO THE ASSESSEE IS UTILIZED FAIRLY BY MAKING FULL AND PROPER COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS FAILING WHICH THE CIT(A) WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS AN ORDER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01 ST FEBRUARY 2017. SD/- SD/- S (A. N. MISHRA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SUJEET/AMIT COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT NEW DELHI