Pankaj Budhiraja, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3308/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65536 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 30-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ BUDHIRAJA
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3308/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PANKAJ BUDHIRAJA, A-13/3, RANA PRATAP BAGH, NEW DELHI. PAN NO. AMWPB8662M VS. ITO, WARD 39(3), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. PANKAJ BUDHIRAJA RESPONDENT BY : SH. SATPAL SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 30/08/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/09/2012 O R D E R THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/04/2012 OF CIT(APPEALS)-XXVIII, NEW DELHI FOR A. Y. 2008-09. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 1 43(3) ON 16/12/2010 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 2,47,000/-. THE ADD ITIONS WERE MADE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES RS. 60,000/- 2. UNSECURED LOANS RS. 45,500/- 3. AS REGARDS ADDITION OF RS. 60,000/-, THE ASSESSE E HAD FILED AN APPLICATION U/S 154 BEFORE AO WHICH WAS REJECTED BY HIM. IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE, INTER-ALIA, STATED THAT AO DID NOT ITA NO. 3308/D/2012 2 ENQUIRE ABOUT THE INCOME OF ANY OTHER FAMILY MEMBER AND HAD ALSO NOT REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS OF WITHDRA WALS OF HIS WIFE. AS REGARDS, ADDITION OF RS. 45,500/- THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT DURING PROCESSING OF ASSESSMENT NO ENQUIRY HAD BEEN MADE F ROM THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, HE HAS FILED COPY OF ORDER-SHEET EN TRIES. 4. LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER, DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APP EAL ON BOTH THE COUNTS, INTER-ALIA, OBSERVING THAT ADDITION ON THE GROUND OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS CANNOT BE SUBJECT MATTER OF RECTIFICATI ON U/S 154 OF INCOME-TAX ACT. SHE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FURNIS HED A CONFIRMATION ALONG WITH APPLICATION U/S 154 WHICH COULD NOT BE A CCEPTED. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. THERE CANNOT BE AN Y QUARREL WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT IF NO ENQUIRY HAD BEEN MADE IN COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN REGARD TO CERTAIN ISSUES, BUT THE A DDITION HAS BEEN MADE, THEN IT CONSTITUTES PRIMA-FACIE ERROR IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE DETA ILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS HAV E BEEN CONSIDERED, BUT HE HAS NOT REFERRED TO THE DETAILS IN THIS REGA RD. FROM THE COPY OF ORDER- SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, I DO NOT FIND ANY SPEC IFIC QUERIES BEING RAISED IN REGARD TO BOTH THE ISSUES. ON THE CONTRARY, ASS ESSEE HAD ADVANCED SPECIFIC PLEADINGS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) REGARDING NO O PPORTUNITY BEING AFFORDED TO ASSESSEE. 7. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, I CONSIDER IT IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BE ALLOWED TO ASSESSEE IN ORDE R TO IMPART SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO HIM. I DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 3308/D/2012 3 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/09/2012 SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28/09/12 *KAVITA COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR