Nazakat Ali, Meerut V. ACIT, OSD, Ward- 1(2)(1), Meerut

ITA 3169/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8371 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: WAHAJ AHMED KHAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-3169/DEL/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) NAZAKAT ALI, HOUSE NO. 52, VILL RASULPUR, AURANGABAD, MEERUT UTTAR PRADESH PAN: CINPA1433J (APPELLANT) VS ACIT, OSD, WARD 1(2)(1), MEERUT (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI WAHAJ AHMED KHAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A), MEERUT RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MEERUT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT THE ORDERS OF ID A.O. ARE HIGH LY ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL & AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MEE RUT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT LD ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX MEERUT HAS DECIDED THE CASE EXPARTE WITHOUT SERVICE OF REQUIRED NOTICE TO SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IS LI ABLE TO BE QUASHED ON THIS GROUND ALONE. 3. THAT LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ME ERUT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT THE MATTER WAS TIME BARRED FOR WANT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. 4. THAT LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ME ERUT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT LD ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME 2 TAX MEERUT HAS GROSSLY EARED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS25,10,000/- WHICH WAS OUT OF THE SALES PROCEEDS O F AGRICULTURE LAND AND STANDING CROPS OF THE FATHER O F THE ASSESSEE. 5. THAT LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MEE RUT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURI ST AND HIS FAMILY BACKGROUND IS ALSO AGRICULTURIST. 6. THAT LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ME ERUT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SOL D HIS ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURE LAND AND SALE PROCEEDS WERE D EPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THAT LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MEE RUT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE SALE O F AGRICULTURE LAND WAS THE SHARE OF 6 BROTHERS OF THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS DIVIDED LATER ON AFTER WITHDRAWING THE SA ME. 8. THAT LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MEE RUT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY M EMBERS BEING UNEDUCATED AND KEEPING SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT IN THE HOUSE WAS UNSAFE, THEREFORE THE ENTIRE CASH RECEIPT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. 9. THAT LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MEE RUT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT THERE IS NO POLICE CASE UPON T HE APPELLANT AND ASSESSEE, HE WAS NOT ABSCONDED. 10. THAT LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) M EERUT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT ID ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX MEERUT HAS WRONGLY PASSED EXPARTE ORDERS, CLAIMING THAT NOTICE COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT AS HE WAS ABSCONDED FROM THE HOUSE. 11. THAT LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ME ERUT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT ID NONE OF THE OTHER :>DES OF SERVICE LIKE PASTING OF NOTICE UPON LAST KNOWN RESIDENTIAL ADDRE SS ETC WERE NOT APPLIED BY LD. AO. 3 12. THAT LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) M EERUT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT ID ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX MEERUT LD INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE UPON WRONG PAN. 13. THAT LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ME ERUT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT ID ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX MEERUT LD INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN M AKING AN ADDITION OF RS 25,10,000.00 WHICH WAS SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURE LAND. 14. THAT LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) MEERUT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT LD ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX MEERUT HAS MAKE THE ADDITION WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 15. THAT ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. ARE BA D IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 16. THAT APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, OMI T TO /FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. PRAYER : - IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT PLEASE QUASHED THE ORDERS OF LD INCOME TAX OFFICER. OR ALTERNATIVELY THE ADDITION O F RS 25,10,000/- BE DELETED OR MAY PASS SUCH ORDERS AS YOUR GOOD SELF C ONSIDER FIT AND PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. DURING THE HEARING, ASSESSEE, HAS STATED THAT AO HAS PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER U/S. 144/147 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT) AND SIMILARLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO, WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO T HE FILE OF THE AO 4 TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIV ING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4. LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION TO THE REQUES T OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. I FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESS EE THAT AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT VIDE EXPARTE ORDER DATED 0 8.12.2017 U/S. 147/144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND SIMILARLY, LD. C IT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO. THEREFORE, IN THE INTE REST OF JUSTICE, I AM SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FILE ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENT S/EVIDENCES, IF ANY, TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE AND FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOUR NMENT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 01.01.2019 . SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 01/01/2019 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI 5