Preveen Kumar Sharma, Bulandshahr V. ITO, Bulandshahr

ITA 3507/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 350720114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO.3507/DEL/2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3507/DEL/2013 A.Y. : 2006-07 PRAVEEN KUMAR SHARMA, C/O MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA, 2, SUNDER PURI, BULANDSHAHR (UP)- 203001 (PAN:- AJPPS5960H) VS. ITO, WARD - 2, INCOME TAX TEACHERS COLONY, BULANDSHAHR (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SAURABH GUPTA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SATPAL SINGH, SR. DR ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM H.S. SIDHU, JM H.S. SIDHU, JM H.S. SIDHU, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 15.3.3013 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MEERUT PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDE R:- 1. THAT THE LD. AO WAS ERRED IN NOT OPTING ASSESSM ENT OF TRADE TAX UNDER SAMADHAN SCHEME. 2. THAT THE LD. AO WAS ERRED IN ENHANCING THE SALE ON THE BASIS OF TRADE TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE SAMADHAN SCHEME. ITA NO.3507/DEL/2013 2 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO WAS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE IN DISPUT E THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FROM BRICK KILN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25.1.2007 AND THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICES U/S. 143 (2) WERE ISSUED ON 28.1.2008. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS THREE TIMES. NOTICE U/S. 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 1.8 .2008, BUT NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, EXCEPT SEEKING ADJOURNMENT AND ANOTHER NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE I T ACT WAS ISSUED ON 24.11.2008 AND DATE FOR COMPLIANCE WAS FIXED ON 4.12.2008, BUT THIS NOTICE ALSO GOT NOT COMPLIED WITH AND ACCORDI NGLY, THE CASE WAS GOT BARRED BY LIMITATION ON 31.12.2008. HOWEVER, O NE MORE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY SERVING A NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 11.12.2008 AND DATE FOR COMPLIANCE WAS FIXED FOR 17.12.2008. ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE R ELEVANT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DETAILS / DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF SALES DISCL OSED HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED NEITHER DETAILS AND BASIS OF TRADE TA X PAYMENT HAS BEEN FURNISHED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ASSE SEE HAS NOT MADE COMPLIANCE TO THE SHOW CAUSE LETTER ISSUED ALONG WI TH NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 11.12.2008 FOR COMPLET ION OF ASSESSMENT. HENCE, THE AO PROCEEDED EXPARTE AND M ADE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 144 OF THE I.T. ACT AND INCOM E ASSESSED ON RS. 3,40,670/- AND ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO, ASSESSEE A PPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 15.3.2013 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.3507/DEL/2013 3 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A), ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED LD. AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO CA NVASS HIS CASE PROPERLY BY PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, HE HAS REQUESTED TO KINDLY ALLOW HIM TO CANVASS HIS CASE B EFORE THE AO. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE FIND LD. AO HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO. SIMILARLY, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL, BY REJECTING THE MAIN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WE FIND THAT AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE FOR PRODUCING NECESSARY EVIDENCE FOR A VERY SHORT TIME AND ASSES SEE COULD NOT PRODUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IT W OULD BE FAIR AND JUST, IF THE ISSUES ARE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, AFTER GIVING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO. ACCORDINGLY , WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE SAME AFRESH. ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PRODUCE ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AND DOCUMENTS TO THE AO AND NOT TO TAKE U NNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. ITA NO.3507/DEL/2013 4 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/8/2014. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [R.S. SYAL R.S. SYAL R.S. SYAL R.S. SYAL] ]] ] [ [[ [H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU] ]] ] ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER DATE 08/8/2014 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NO.3507/DEL/2013 5