Sanjeev Jindal, New Delhi V. ITO WARD 41(3), New Delhi

ITA 3033/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5732 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FARAT KHAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-2, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO. 3033/DEL/2019 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 SANJEEV JINDAL, A-2/153, PASHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110063 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-41(3), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A DLPJ1196L ASSESSEE BY : SH. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. FARAT KHAN, ADDL. CIT DR DATE OF HEAR ING: 10 . 0 3 .20 2 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26 .04 .20 2 1 ORDER PER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-15, NEW DELHI DATED 25. 02.2019. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE: 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (A) ARE CONTRARY TO FACTS AND LAW AND RECORD. 2. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IT IS APPELLANT WHO IS PROPRIETOR OF M /S. APAAR ENTERPRISES. THERE WAS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH CAN EVEN SHOW OR POINT OUT THAT APPELLANT WAS IN THE PROPRIETOR OR SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. APAAR ENTERPRISES. YET, SUCH PERVERSE AND BASELESS FINDIN G ARE RETURNED. THESE FACTS ARE SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF CIT(A) BUT HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED. THERE IS NO DISCUSSION AT ALL ON THIS VITA L ASPECT BY CIT (A) BUT HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED. ITA NO. 3033/DEL/2019 SANJEEV JINDAL 2 THERE IS NO DISCUSSION AT ALL ON THIS VITAL ASPECT BY CIT (A). ERROR IS EX FACIE APPARENT. APPELLANT REITERATES AND REAFFIRMS THAT HE WAS NEVER THE PROPRIETOR / SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. APAAR ENTERPRI SES AND AS SUCH CANNOT BE FASTENED WITH ANY LIABILITY ARISING QUA SAID FIRM. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT PLACED ON RECORD THE DOCUMENTS ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF TRADE & TAXES CONFIRMING THAT IT IS MS. ANJUL AGGARWAL WHO IS THE PROPRIETOR / SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. APAAR ENTERPRISES AND NOT APPELLANT. SAID DOCUMENT IS ABOVE SUSPICIOUS AND WAS ON RECORD, BUT HAS BEEN IGNORED. THERE ARE NO DISCUSSIONS OR REASONING ASSIGNED BY ANY OF THE FORUM BELOW FOR IGNORING THI S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 4. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT IS SHOWN TO BE PROPRIETOR OF M/S APAAR ENTERPRISES IN BANK ACCOUNT. SAID FINDING ARE ALSO CONTRARY TO RECORDS. APPELLANT IS ONLY SHO WN TO BE THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY FOR BANK ACCOUNT ARE NOT PROPRIETOR AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. ERR OR IS EX FACIE APPARENT. THERE WAS / IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH CAN SHOW OR POINT OUT THAT APPELLANT I S SHOWN TO BE THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. APAAR ENTERPRISE S IN THE BANK ACCOUNT YET SUCH PERVERSE AND BASELESS FINDING ARE RETURNED. THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY' AND 'PROPRIETOR' HAS BEEN IGNORED. IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN APPRECIATED AND EXAMINED BEFORE PASSING ANY ORDER. 5. THAT THE EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS GIVEN BY APPELLANT ARE COMPLETELY IGNORED. PRESUMING THOUGH NOT ADMITTING THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT DILIGEN T IN PURSUING HIS APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A), YET IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO AT LEAST EXAMINE THE RECORDS BEFORE PASSING ANY ORDER. BUT THERE WAS NO SUCH EXAMINATION BY CIT (A). DOCUMENTS FILED AND FORMING PART OF RECORD WERE COMPLETELY IGNORED. ITA NO. 3033/DEL/2019 SANJEEV JINDAL 3 3. DURING THE HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) DATED 25.02.2019 HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT AFFIRMING THAT THE NOTI CE HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE NOTICES ISSUE D TO THE ADDRESS OF HIS COUNSELS JP & CO., JITENDRA KUMAR GO EL HAVE FAILED TO APPRAISE THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE NOTICE RE CEIVED AND ALSO DEFAULTED IN ATTENDING THE HEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IT WAS PLEADED THAT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY, DUE COMPLIAN CE WOULD BE MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A ) AND FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES INDEPENDENTLY ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. HENCE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) FOR ADJUDICATION DE NOVO WITH DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY DILIGENTLY TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT (A) . 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/04/2021. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (DR. B. R. R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 26/04/2021 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR