Parminder Singh Sabharwal, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3469/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9664 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 80C; 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 3469/DEL/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3469/DEL/20 17 (A.Y. 2012-13) PARMINDER SINGH SABHARWAL C/O. C.A. KAILASH THAPAR, D-32, 3 RD FLOOR, BALI NAGAR NEW DELHI PAN : AATPS4411J (APPELLANT) VS . ITO WARD-41(1) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.12. 2016 PASSED BY CIT(A)- 14, NEW DELHI BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING T HE ASSESSEES APPEAL VIDE EX- PARTE APPELLATE ORDER DT. 09.12.2016, ON THE GROUND THAT NONE ATTENDED THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WITHOUT ENSURING THAT THE NO TICES SENT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. THE REASON FOR NOT ATTENDING THE APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY SHIFTED FROM 9/84, PUNJABI BA GH WEST, NEW DELHI-26. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED, AS THE NATURAL JUST ICE WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SMT. SULEKHA VERMA, CIT- DR DATE OF HEARING 19.09.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.09.2019 2 ITA NO. 3469/DEL/2017 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T THOUGH THE LD. A.O. HAD MENTIONED THAT HE HAD PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U /S 143(3). 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT FURNISHING CER TAIN DETAILS / DOCUMENTS, AS REQUIRED BY THE LD. A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,08,000/- IS UNJUSTIFIED. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,33,454/- IS UNJUSTIFIED. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,46,011/- IS UNJUSTIFIED. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,37,000/- IS UNJUSTIFIED. 9. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,64,698/- IS UNJUSTIFIED. 10. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW , THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 26,060/- IS UNJUSTIFIED. 11. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW , THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 93,400/- CLAIMED UNDER CHAPTER VIA (RS. 78,400/- U/S 80C ON A/C OF SCHOOL FEES OF CHILDREN AND RS. 15,000/- U/S 80D ON A/C OF MEDICLAIM PREMIUM PAID), IS UNJUSTIFIED. 12. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW , THE ADDITION OF RS. 46,17,387/- U/S 40(A)(IA) MADE BY THE LD. A.O. IS U NJUSTIFIED. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPOR T OF AUTO PARTS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. SUPERIOR OVERSEAS. THE RETUR N DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 4,33,543/- WAS FILED ON 26.09.2012. THE ASSESSING O FFICER MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 12. 03.2015. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF NON-APPEARANCE. 3 ITA NO. 3469/DEL/2017 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASS ESSEE DESPITE GIVING PROPER NOTICE. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS W ELL AS THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED ALL THE REL EVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE ISSUES ON MERIT. THEREFORE, IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO REMAND BACK ALL THE ISSUES CONTESTED BEFORE THE CIT(A). WE FURTHER CLARIFY THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL APPEAR BEFOR E THE CIT(A) AND REPRESENT THE CASE AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. IN RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019 . SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20/09/2019 *BR * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 4 ITA NO. 3469/DEL/2017 DATE OF DICTATION 19 .09 .2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19 .0 9 .2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK