M/s. Balwan Singh Ramawat, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3340/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7281 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIT LAL
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 2 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 3340 /DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2005 - 0 6 M/S BALWAN SINGH RAMAWAT, R/O - WZ - 462, PALAM VILLAGE, NEW DELHI - 110045 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(4 ), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A DLPR3054P ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. AMRIT LAL , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 23 .08 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEME NT : 31 .08 .201 6 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.02.2012 OF LD. CIT(A) - XVI , NEW DELHI . 2 . THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE EX - PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) A ND IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 3 . FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) BY SPEED POST TO THE ASSESSEE AND ON SCHEDULE D DATE NOBODY WAS PRESENT, T HE AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT BY MAKING AN ITA NO . 3340 /DEL /201 4 BALWA N SINGH RAMAWAT 2 ADDITION OF RS.11,38,000/ - . AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, T HE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY PASSING THE EX - PA RTE ORDER AND OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE NUMEROUS NOTICES SENT TO THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT FOR THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION AND RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 ON 17.06.2011. 4 . NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER AN Y ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THE APPEAL IS DECIDED EX - PARTE ON MERIT AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 5 . T HE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COME FORWARD TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTION OF RS.11,38,000/ - , THEREFORE, T HE AO H AS RIGHTLY TREATED THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 6 . I HAVE CO NSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS O F LD. DR AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THA T THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) PASS ED THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDER S EX - PARTE . HOWEVER, IT IS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE NOTICES OF HEARING WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE AO AS SUMED THAT THE NOTICE MIGHT HAVE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTL ED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM . I, THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ITA NO . 3340 /DEL /201 4 BALWA N SINGH RAMAWAT 3 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . (O RD ER PRO NO UNCED IN THE COURT ON 31 /0 8 /2016 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 31 /0 8 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR