Sh. Anil Sharma, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3501/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 350120114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN RAWEL
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 2, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMB ER ITA NO. 3501/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ANIL SHARMA 621/9, VISHWAS NAGAR (NEAR 18 QRT.), SHAHDARA NEW DELH PAN : ANCPS3320E (APPELLANT) VS. ITO WARD-1 9(4) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI ROBIN RAWEL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 06.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07. 07.2015 ORDER PER H.S.SIDHU, J.M : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.02.2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-XXII, N EW DELHI PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2008-09. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APP EAL :- A. THAT THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CA SE. B. THAT THE INCOME U/S 44AE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ACCEPTED AND ALL DEPOSIT IS OUT OF THE INCOME OF TH E YEAR. C. THAT THE ASSESSEES INCOME IS MORE THAN WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED. D. THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT WAS RS. 50,000/- & RS. 300 000/- WHILE THE SAME WAS CONSIDER RS. 200000/- & 300000/- . E. THAT THE PETITIONER RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO FILE D ETAIL OF MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APP EAL. PRAYER : . ITA NO. 3501/DEL/2 014 2 IT IS THEREFORE MOST HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ORDER D ATED 24.02.2014 OF THE LD. CIT AND ORDER DATED 21.12.201 0 OF THE LD. ITO BE SET ASIDE. OR ANY OTHER RELIEF WHICH THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT BE GRANTED. 3. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESS EE ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36 COLUMN NO. 10 BUT IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTE D APPEAR TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, NO USEF UL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN ON THE SA ME ADDRESS. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRES ENT CASE, I AM DECIDING THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE EX PARTE ASSESSEE AFT ER HEARING LD. DR. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECOR D AVAILABLE WITH ME AND I AM OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER RECORD THE ASSESSE E FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.7.2008 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 84,0 60/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFT ER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 1 43(2) OF THE IT ACT ON 24.9.2009 (ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER). ACCORDING TO THE PAGE NO. 40 OF THE APPEAL FILED ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE LETTER DA TED 30.11.2012 RAISING VARIOUS ISSUES INCLUDING THAT A NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS BAD IN ALL THOSE CASES WHERE THE RETURN IS FILED UNDER THE SCH EME. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY THAT NO STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. HE HAS ALSO FILED HIS AFFIDAVIT WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 41 OF THE APPEAL FILED. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THIS ISSUE AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. . ITA NO. 3501/DEL/2 014 3 5. I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21. 12.2010 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT A ND I FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED ASSESSMENT IN A VER Y HURRY MANNER WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 14 3(2) ON 24.09.2009 AND THE OTHER DETAIL QUESTIONNAIRE ON 8.6.2010. HE HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE IT ACT WAS ISSUED TO M/S INDIABULLS SECURITIES LTD. , GURGAEN CALLING FOR CO PY OF DEMAT ACCOUNT FOR F.Y. 2007-08 AND ALSO DETAILS OF PAYMENT RECEI VED / MADE FROM THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AN D VIDE LETTER DATED 26.11.2010, M/S INDIABULLS SECURITIES LTD., G URGEON INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID THE RS. 2 LAKHS ON VARIOUS DATES. I FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MENTIONED ANY DATE OF NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE IT ACT. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO CALLED VARIOUS DETAILS FROM THE STANDARD CHARTERED BANK ON THE DEP OSIT OF RS. 3 LAKHS BUT I HAVE NOT FOUND ANY INTIMATION TO THE ASSESSEE ON THESE CORRESPONDENCE WITH THESE BANKS BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN MADE BY HIM. SIMILARLY, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS AL SO NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MENTIONED ABOVE AND DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE A SSESSEE MEANING THEREBY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVEN A SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PRODUCING THE SUFFI CIENT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DECIDED ISSUE IN D ISPUTE AGAIN THE ASSESSEE. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE PRESENT CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER MERELY MENTIONING THE FACTS OF THE C ASE, OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REPRODUCING THE WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS OF THE . ITA NO. 3501/DEL/2 014 4 ASSESSEE AND DECIDED THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY MENTIONING THE VARIOUS DECISION RENDERED BY THE HON BLE HIGH COURTS AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. I AM OF THE CON SIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY HAS NOT ANSWERED THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 23.12.2011, 30.11.2012, 14.01.201 3 AND 03.12.2013 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS ISSUES FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM BEFORE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 7. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF J USTICE, THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO TH E ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.072015. SD/- (H.S.SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 07 .07.2015 B.RUKHAIYAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT (ITAT), NEW DELHI . ITA NO. 3501/DEL/2 014 5 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 07/07/2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 08/07/2015 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.