Sh. Jagtar Singh, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2888/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 288820114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GARIMA JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV KAPOOR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 234B; 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-2: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 2888 & 2890/DEL/2014 A.YRS. : 2005-06 & 2007-08 SH. JAGTAR SINGH, VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -23, WZ-221/255, BLOCK-S, 359, 3 RD FLOOR, ARA CENTRE, E-2 7, VISHNU GARDEN, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI 110 018 NEW DELHI 110 055 (PAN : AGUPM2007R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SANJEEV KAPOOR, CA DEPARTMENT BY : MS. GARIMA JAIN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 02-11-2015 DATE OF ORDER : 02-11-2015 O R D E R THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XI, NEW DELHI BOTH DATED 28.2.2014 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2007-08. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL, HENCE, I AM DISPOSING THE APPEALS BY PASSING THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE O F CONVENIENCE, BY DEALING THE ITA NO. 2888/DEL/2014 (AY 2005-06). 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 2 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX IS BAD IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE PROCEEDING U/S 143(3)/153C/153A WERE ILLEGAL AND NOT ACCORDING TO A CT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY TR EATED BANK PASS BOOK AS ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS A CO PY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE BANK. THE APPLICATION OF SECT ION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS UNJUST AND ARBITRARY. 3. THAT NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE A SSESSEE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE FOR MAKING SUBMISSION OR FILING EVIDENCE OR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THIS WAS AGAINST THE NATURAL LA W OF JUSTICE. FURTHER NO DETAILED OR SPEAKING ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL). 4. THE ADDITION OF RS. 66,780/- FOR THE ALLEGED BAN K DEPOSIT WERE' UNJUST AND UNCALLED FOR. THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON A ASSUMPTION BASIS WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE MATERIAL U SED AGAINST ASSESSEE. 5. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN CHARGING I NTEREST ULS 234A, 234B OR 234D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT-1961. 6. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR WITHDR AW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE OR DERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WI TH THE APPEAL FIELD. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE HIM. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL A ND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, FOLLOWING N OTICES WERE ISSUED VIDE SPEED POST ON THE ADDRESS (JAGTAR SINGH, WZ-22 1/255, BLOCK-S, 7, VISHNU GARDEN, NEW DELHI 110018 STATED IN FROM N O. 35:- DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE / SPEED POST FIXED FOR REMARKS 24 .9.13 ED27220648-61N 17 .10.13 NOTICE WAS SENT BY SPEED POST ON 24.9.2013 FIXING THE CASE 17.10.13. NONE ATTENDED NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT. 19.2.14 ED10352377-21N 27.02.14 NOTICE WAS SENT BY SPEED POST ON 19.2.14 FIXING THE CASE 27.2.14. NONE ATTENDED NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT. 1.2 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS STATED ABOVE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESEE WAS GIVEN TWO OPPORTUNITIES (LISTED ABOVE) TO REPRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY BUT NOBODY ATTENDED THE PROCEED INGS NOR FILED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION. THE NOTICES WERE SENT BY SP EED POST FOR WHICH IT IS PRESUMED THAT ASSESSER MUST HAVE RECE IVED THEM WITHIN 3 DAYS. BUT HE NEVER FILED ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION NOR APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN VIEW OF THE INDIFFERENT APPROACH, I FIND THAT NO USEFUL 4 PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY KEEPING THE APPEAL PROCE EDINGS PENDING INDEFINITELY. THEREFORE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. 1.3 FURTHER, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 25 1(1)(C), THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS HAS THE POWER TO DISPOSE OF AN APPEAL IN ANY OTHER CASE, HE MAY PASS SUCH ORDERS IN THE APPEAL A S HE THINGS FIT. IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS ENOUGH GROUND OF NON-APPE ARANCE OF THE APPELLANT TO DECIDE THE MATTER EX-PARTE, THE APPEAL IS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, THE A CTION OF THE AO IS UPHELD AND THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED BEING UNREPR ESENTED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 5. AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A), I FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER. HE SUMMARILY DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE BEING UNREPRESENTED. IN MY CO NSIDERED OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN THIS REGARD. LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE AD JUDICATED THE ISSUE ON MERITS. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT EVEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS H AVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HENCE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT I N THIS CASE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE NEEDS TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT( A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AS PER LAW. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO CON SIDER THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH AND PASS A PROPER AND SPEAKING ORDER CONSIDERING TH E MERITS OF THE CASE. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. FOR THE SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF THE MATTER, THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED THROUGH HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SHRI SANJEEV KAPOOR, TO BE PRESENT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 5 08.12.2015 AT 10.00 AM AND FILE THE RELEVANT DOCUMEN TS, IF ANY, BEFORE HIM TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/11/2015. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 02/11/2015 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. D R, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES