Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7069 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
28-10-2011
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
22-12-2011
Assessment Year
2001-2002
Appeal Filed On
17-06-2011
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1837 TO 1840/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2000-01 TO 2003-04 DILBANS KAUR DHILLON, F-130/2, LANE W-5A, SAINIK FARM, NEW DELHI. PAN : AEAPD4338Q VS. ADIT, CIRCLE 1 (1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI. ITA NOS.3279 TO 3282/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2000-01 TO 2003-04 ITO, WARD 24 (3), ROOM NO.186, CR BUILDING, NEW DELHI. DILBANS KAUR DHILLON, F-130/2, LANE W-5A, SAINIK FARM, NEW DELHI. PAN : AEAPD4338Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.J.B. RELAN, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI N.K. CHAND, SR. DR ORDER PER BENCH: ITA NOS. 1837 TO 1840/DEL/2011 ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.3279 TO 3282/DEL/2011 ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS. THEY ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) DATED 31 ST JANUARY, 2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 2007-08. THE GROUND S OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.1837 TO 1840/DEL/2011 ITA NOS.3279 TO 3282/DEL/2011 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT (A) IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTI NG THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOM E TAX RULES. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ACTED ARBITRARILY IN SUSTAIN ING AN ADDITION OF RS.9000225/- AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. 4. THAT THE LD. A.O. AS WELL AS CIT (A) ACTED ARBITRARI LY IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1616345/- AS UNEXPLAINED EX PENDITURE AND UNEXPLAINED CASH. 5. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, DELETE, MOD IFY ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT (A) IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTI NG THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOM E TAX RULES. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ACTED ARBITRARILY IN SUSTAIN ING AN ADDITION OF RS.3,65,80,825/- AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS . 4. THAT THE LD. A.O. AS WELL AS CIT (A) ACTED ARBITRARI LY IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.17,00,362/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AND UNEXPLAINED CASH. 5. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, DELETE, MOD IFY ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 1.1 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04 THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. A.O. AS WELL AS CIT (A) I S BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FATS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ACTED ARBITRARILY IN SUSTAIN ING AN ADDITION OF RS.47,06,267/- AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, DELETE, MOD IFY ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEA RING ITA NOS.1837 TO 1840/DEL/2011 ITA NOS.3279 TO 3282/DEL/2011 3 1.2 GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2000-01 READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.37,72,380/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN HSBC BANK ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND A NY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 1.3 FOR OTHER YEARS THE FIGURES ARE AS UNDER:- ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ` 67,10,363/- ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ` 45,72,845/- ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 `1,14,58,946/- 2. THE POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE RETURNED INCOME A ND ASSESSED INCOME HAS BEEN TABULATED BY LEARNED CIT (A) IN PAR A 1.2OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE SAME IS BEING REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- ASSTT. YEAR RETURNED INCOME (RS.) DATE OF FILING ASSESSED INCOME (RS.) (TOTAL DEPOSIT IN BANK)* ASSESSED INCOME (RS.) (REPAYMENT IN CASH) @ DEMAND (RS.) DATE OF ORDER 01-02 NIL 07/10/07 4,32,91,188 17,00,362 4,28,32,186 28/12/07 00-01 NIL 07/10/07 1,27,72,605 16,16,345 1,43,48,052 28/12/07 03-04 2,65,152 21/02/07 1,64,30,365 - 64,57,177 28/12/07 02-03 1,21,954 05/07/02 9--,00,166 - 49,49,619 28/1 2/07 3. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD SIX BANK ACCOUNTS IN INDIA IN WHICH THERE WERE SEVERAL DE POSITS. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INFORMATION, RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE I NITIATED. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN VARIOUS DEPOSITS IN HE R BANK ACCOUNT. IN RESPONSE TO SUCH QUERY VARIOUS DETAILS WERE FILED. IT IS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THERE WAS A SHORTAG E OF TIME AS THERE WAS CHANGE IN INCUMBENT AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSE SSEE WAS ITA NOS.1837 TO 1840/DEL/2011 ITA NOS.3279 TO 3282/DEL/2011 4 REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE PROVISIONS U/S 144 SH OULD NOT BE INITIATED FOR BEST JUDGEMENT AS THE ASSESSMENT IS GOING TO BE TIME BARRED ON 31 ST DECEMBER, 2007. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE PROPER EVIDENCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER A DDED THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN THOSE BANK ACCOUNTS AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO SOME OTHER ADDITIONS. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A) IT WAS CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW AND IS AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE NOTICE WAS ISSUE D WITHOUT PROPER INQUIRY AND WITHOUT PLACING ON RECORD ANY EV IDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO A CANADIAN CITIZEN, BUT BECA ME AN INDIAN RESIDENT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. IT IS ALSO RECORDED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD APPEARED ON 22 ND NOVEMBER, 2010 AND RELIED UPON THE SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 9 TH JUNE, 2010 AND THE LEARNED AR WAS ASKED TO APPEAR ON THE NEXT DATE AND CONTINUE THE HEARING, BUT THE LEARNE D AR OF THE ASSESSEE NEVER APPEARED THEREAFTER. THEREFORE, LEARNED CIT (A) HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS O F WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 9 TH JUNE, 2010. 4. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED HERE THAT ON THE FIRST PA GE OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN AS UNDER:- PRESENT FOR APPELLANT : NONE 5. IT IS ALSO THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, AS PER THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL, THAT LEARNED CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJ ECTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RUL ES, THEREFORE, IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE IT IS A CASE WHERE REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.1837 TO 1840/DEL/2011 ITA NOS.3279 TO 3282/DEL/2011 5 6. IN A LETTER FILED BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR OF TH E ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS WHICH ARE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 22 ND DECEMBER, 2011 SHOULD BE TAKEN UP AND CONSOLIDATED A ND IT IS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE LETTER THAT SINCE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS REGARDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY NOT BEING GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE CIT (A) AND ALSO REGARDING NON-ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL EXTEND ALL COOPERATION TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BY CONSOLIDATING THE ASSESSEES APPEALS AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. ON THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DR THAT PROPER OPPORT UNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN CASE THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DIRECTED TO EXTEND F ULL COOPERATION TO THE DEPARTMENT AND MAY BE GIVEN DATE , SO THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY FURTHER DELAY IN THE PROCEEDINGS. 8. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PART IES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS A CASE WHERE PROPER OPPORTUNIT Y HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE EITHER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). IT HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ATTENDING THE REQUIRE MENTS PUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SIMILARLY, BEFORE CIT (A) ALSO, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD APPEARED AND ONLY ON ONE DATE THE ASSESSE E DID NOT APPEAR AND THE ORDER HAS BEEN FRAMED BY LEARNED CIT (A) ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. IT IS ALSO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT THERE WERE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE C IT (A) WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS A FIT CASE WHERE THE MATTER CAN BE RESTORED BACK TO ITA NOS.1837 TO 1840/DEL/2011 ITA NOS.3279 TO 3282/DEL/2011 6 THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO FRAME DENOVO ASSESSMENT AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNIT Y TO PLACE ALL THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD TO PROVE THE GENUI NENESS OF THE DEPOSITS, ETC. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY GIVEN IN WRITING THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL EXTEND FULL COOPERATION TO THE DEPARTMENT AND HAS OFFERED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ON 30 TH JANUARY, 2012. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) AND ASSESSING OFFICER AND RESTORE BACK THESE APPEALS TO TH E FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO FRAME DENOVO ASSESSME NT FOR ALL THE YEARS AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING AND OF PLACING ALL THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD ON THE B ASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THAT NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. AFT ER GIVING SUCH OPPORTUNITY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL RE-ADJUDICATE TH E ADDITIONS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE A SSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 30 TH JANUARY, 2012. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ORDER, WE DO NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED BY BOTH THE PAR TIES AS THE SAME WILL BE RE-ADJUDICATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER O UR ABOVE DIRECTIONS. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WEL L AS THE REVENUE ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.10.20 11. SD/- SD/- [SHAMIM YAHYA] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 28.10.2011. DK ITA NOS.1837 TO 1840/DEL/2011 ITA NOS.3279 TO 3282/DEL/2011 7 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NOS.1837 TO 1840/DEL/2011 ITA NOS.3279 TO 3282/DEL/2011 8
