Pardeep Jain, New Delhi V. ITO WARD -37(4), New Delhi

ITA 3315/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6213 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARUL SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 147; 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI SMC BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3315/DEL/2019 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11] PARDEEP JAIN, VS. ITO, WARD 37(4), H.NO. H-1/59, 2 ND FLOOR, NEW DELHI SECTOR-16, ROHINI, NEW DELHI 110 085 (PAN: AFJPJ5054R) [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY : MS. PARUL SINGH, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS-13], NEW DELHI DATED 21.02.2019 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 O N THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN QUESTION AND WITHOUT APPRECIATI NG THE DOCUMENTS FILED IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE, LD. CIT (A) UPHELD THE SAME. 2. THAT NO STATUTORY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAVING BEEN ISSUED, THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT AND CONSEQUENT FRAMING OF ORDER U/S. 147 AND 143(3) IS BAD IN LAW AND NON-EST. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 11,77,600/- DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSE D INCOME, WHEREAS THE SAME WAS REPORTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION AND L D. 2 CIT(A) WAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE SAME AND UPHELD T HE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 4. THAT THE LD. AO ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 11,77,600/- OTHER THAN TH E RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION AND TREATING THE SAME U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DESPITE OF DISCHARGING THE ONUS BY THE ASSESSEE BY PROVIDING H IS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTIO N AND LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,77,600/-. 5. THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO ARE BASED ON SURMIS ES AND CONJECTURES AND ARE NEITHER SUPPORTED WITH ANY EVIDENCE, IF ANY, COLLECTED BY DEPARTMENT NOR VERIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION AND APPLICATION OF MIND. THE AO ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DURING THE COURSE PROCEEDINGS AND DISCHARGED HI ONUS. FURTHER THE AO FAILED TO CONSIDER RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DECLARING INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,40,9 2 ON RECEIPTS OF RS. 21,40,248/- APART FROM THE CONTR ACT WORKS AND THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO WERE PART OF THE RECEIPTS SHOWN UNDER THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE, THAT THE ASESSEE HAS DULY FILED THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF H IS CASE. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR VARY ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL. 2. ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL ON 16.04.2 019 WHICH WAS FIXED BEFORE THE BENCH FOR TODAY I.E. 11.02.202 0 BY ISSUING RPAD NOTICE ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT IN SPITE OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE, NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT IVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APP LICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE 3 PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, I AM D ECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 3. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ESPECIALLY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED T HAT ASSESSEE REMAINED NON-COOPERATIVE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORI TIES, THEREFORE, NO LENIENT VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE. 4. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES AND PERUSED THE CONTENTION RAISED BY T HE REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDE R PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). I FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EXPARTE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE. I ALSO FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ISSUED NOTICE BY EMAI L THREE TIMES TO THE ASSESSEE. BUT IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, ASSESSEE APPEARED ONLY ONE TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). BUT IN MY CONSIDERE D VIEW AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE REQ UIRE THOROUGH CONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH T HE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AS PER LAW, AFTER GIVING AD EQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. I HOLD AND DIRECTLY ACCORDINGLY. 4 5. NO DOUBT THAT ASSESSEE REMAINED NON-COOPERATIVE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, BUT KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FAC TS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND NON-COOPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE, I AM DIRE CTING THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 23.04.2020 AT 10.00 AM FOR HEARING. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12.02.2020. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:12-02-2020 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) ASSTT. REGISTRAR, 5. DR ITAT, NEW DELHI