Mr. Umesh Sharma, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2920/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 292020114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDHIRANJAN SENAPATI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 80C; 143(3); 153A; 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2920 /DEL/201 4 A.Y. : 20 10 - 11 UMESH SHARMA, VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23 , B - 34A, WEST VINOD NAGAR, 359, 3 RD FLOOR, ARA CENTRE, E - 2 IP EXTN.N, NEW DELHI 110 092 JHANDEWALAN EXTN., (PAN : ARVPS8485R) NEW DELHI 55 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SHAILESH GUPTA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SUDHIRANJAN SENAPATI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 5 - 8 - 2015 DATE OF ORDER : 1 0 - 9 - 2015 PER H.S. SIDHU: JM O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , MEERUT DATED 28 . 2 .201 4 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11 . 2. T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: - 1. THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) IS BAD IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2 . THAT NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE T O REPRESENT HIS CASE FOR MAKING HIS SUBMISSION OR FILING EVIDENCE OR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THIS WAS AGAINST THE NATURAL LAW OF JUSTICE. FURTHER NO 2 SPEAKING AND DETAILED ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL). 3 . THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE DATE OF APPOINTMENT AS DIRECTOR OF VARIOUS COMPANIES AND AS SUCH THE PROCEEDINGS ULS 143(3) / 153A / 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS INVALID AND NOT PROPER. 4 . THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY TREATED BANK PASS BOOK AS ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS A COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE BANK. THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT - 1961 IS UNJUST AND ARBITRARY. 5 . THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN DISALLOWING CLAIM OF INSURANCE PAYMENT ETC. ULS 80C OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR RS. 1,00,000 / - . THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AS PER COPY OF PASSBOOK PRODUCED OR THE SAME WAS ALLOWED BY THE EMPLOYER AFTER DUE VERIFICATION. 6. THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,90,160 / - UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT - 1961 H AS BEEN MADE 'ARBITRARILY ON ASSUMPTION BASIS AND WITHOUT AN Y SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. FURTHER NO ENQUIRY WAS MADE FOR THE ALLEGED SAID DEPOSIT AND NO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BEFORE MAKING THE ADDITION. 7. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR WITHD RAW ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF APPEAL. 3 3. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH THE APPEAL FIELD. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE H IM. 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 AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, FOLLOWING NOTICES WERE ISSUED VIDE SPEED POST ON THE ADDRESS (UMESH SHARMA, B - 34 - A, WEST VINOD NAGAR, IP EXTENSION, DELHI 110 092) STATED IN FRO M NO. 35: - DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE / SPEED POST FIXED FOR REMARKS 17.9.13 ED27220602 - 71N 08.10.13 NOTICE WAS SENT BY SPEED POST ON 17.9.2013 FIXING THE CASE 08.10.13. NONE ATTENDED NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT. 19.2.14 ED10352375 - 51N 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 4 REPRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY BUT NOBODY ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS NOR FILED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION. THE NOTICES WERE SENT BY SPEED POST FOR WHICH IT IS PRESUMED THAT ASSESSE MUST HAVE RECEIVED 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 PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY KEEPING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS 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 251(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 AS HE THIN GS FIT . IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS ENOUGH GROUND OF NON APPEARANCE OF THE APPELLANT TO DECIDE THE MATTER EX - PARTE, THE APPEAL IS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IS UPHELD AND THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED BEING UNREPRESENTED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 5. AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE 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 CONSIDERED OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN THIS REGARD. LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE ON MERITS. IT IS A SETTLED LAW 5 THAT EVEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF NATURA L JUSTICE. HENCE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IN 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 CONSIDER THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH AND P ASS A PROPER AND SPEAKING ORDER CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 0 / 9 /201 5 . S D / - [ H.S. SIDHU ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 1 0 . / 9 /201 5 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 6