Urmila Rani, Haridwar V. DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun

ITA 3/DDN/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4124 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘DB’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2 & 3/DDN/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Urmila Rani Nath House, Devpura, Haridwar-249401 PAN No.AFMPR0961A Vs DCIT Central Circle Dehradun (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Gautam Jain, CA Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Respondent by Sh. Sanjay Pandey, Sr. DR. Date of hearing: 23/08/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 23/08/2022 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: ITA No. 2/DDN/2020 and 3/DDN/2020 are two separate appeals by the assessee preferred against two separate orders of the CIT(A)-4, Kanpur dated 26.09.2019 and CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar dated 14.11.2017 pertaining to A.Y.2012-13. 2. Since common grievance is involved in both the appeals they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2 3. In ITA No.3/DDN/2020 the peculiar facts are that assessment order dated 24.03.2014 was framed u/s. 143 (3) of the Act. The taxable income was computed as under :- 4. Assessee assailed the assessment before the CIT(A), challenging the addition of Rs. 1.25 crores on account of disclosure made in the statement recorded u/s. 132 (4) of the Act. Subsequently before the appellate authority this ground was withdrawn. 5. A perusal of the computation of taxable income show that this addition of Rs.1.25 crores was never made by the AO, therefore, the challenge by the assessee before the CIT(A) was uncalled for and otios. 6. Before us also the assessee has raised similar ground making his appeal infructuous. 3 7. In ITA No.2/DDN/2020 the AO framed the assessment u/s. 154 of the Act rectifying the order passed u/s. 143 (3) of the Act earlier and made the addition of Rs. 1.25 crores. This addition was challenged before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) taking a leaf out of the order of CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar confirmed the addition. We are of the considered view that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits of the case. Therefore, in the interest of justice we restore this appeal to the files of the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) is directed to decide the quarrel on merits after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No.3/DDN/2020 is infructuous. 9. Decision announced in the open court in the presence of both the parties on 23.08.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* Date:- .08.2022 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI