Rohit Chechi, New Delhi V. ITO ward 61(2), New Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2841 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBHASH GUPTA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 3524 & 3525/DEL/2019 AYRS. 2013-14 & 2014-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI G BEN CH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 3524 & 3525/DEL/2019 [ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14 & 2014-15 ] ROHIT CHECHI, VS. ITO, WARD 61(2), C-24, SOUTH EXTN.-1, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 049 (PAN:AAFPC6736L) [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY : SH. SUBHASH GUPTA, CA REVENUE BY : SH. AJAY KUMAR, SR. DR. DATE OF HEARING : 19.11.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.11.2020 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THE ABOVE 02 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE COMMON EXPARTE ORDER DATED 25.02.2019 OF THE LD. CI T(A)-20, NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND 2014-15 RESPECTIVEL Y. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THEREFORE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 3524 & 3525/DEL/2019 AYRS. 2013-14 & 2014-15 2 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ADDITION OF RS. 7728143/- INCO ME FROM COMPENSATION RECEIVED AGAINST ACQUISITION AGRICULTU RE. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED EXPARTE APPEAL ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDER SUBMISSION MA DE BY APPELLANT BEFORE CIT(A) AND WITHOUT GRANT PROPER R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO APPELLANT AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF N ATURAL JUSTICE PASSED THE APPEAL ORDER WITHOUT MERIT OF THE CASE. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ADDITION OF RS. 7728143/- INCO ME FROM COMPENSATION RECEIVED AGAINST ACQUISITION AGRICUL TURE EXEMPTED INCOME 10(37) OF INCOME TAX ACT. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ADDITION OF RS. 7728143/- INCO ME FROM COMPENSATION RECEIVED AGAINST ACQUISITION AGRICULTU RE PASS THE ORDER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AGAINST THE PRINC IPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE WITH APPLICANT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRM AN ADDITION O F RS. 7728143/- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAS NOT APPRECIATED ITA NOS. 3524 & 3525/DEL/2019 AYRS. 2013-14 & 2014-15 3 THE FACTS EVIDENCES SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLAN T IN CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ AMEND ANY OF SAI D GROUND OF APPEAL. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEEE IN THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2014-15 ARE AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ADDITION OF RS. 3185194/- INCO ME FROM COMPENSATION RECEIVED AGAINST ACQUISITION AGRICULTU RE. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED EXPARTE APPEAL ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDER SUBMISSION MA DE BY APPELLANT BEFORE CIT(A) AND WITHOUT GRANT PROPER R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO APPELLANT AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF N ATURAL JUSTICE PASSED THE APPEAL ORDER WITHOUT MERIT OF THE CASE. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ADDITION OF RS. 3185194/- INCO ME FROM COMPENSATION RECEIVED AGAINST ACQUISITION AGRICUL TURE EXEMPTED INCOME 10(37) OF INCOME TAX ACT. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ADDITION OF RS. 3185194/- INCO ME FROM ITA NOS. 3524 & 3525/DEL/2019 AYRS. 2013-14 & 2014-15 4 COMPENSATION RECEIVED AGAINST ACQUISITION AGRICULTU RE PASS THE ORDER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AGAINST THE PRINC IPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE WITH APPLICANT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRM AN ADDITION O F RS. 3185194/- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS EVIDENCES SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLAN T IN CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ AMEND ANY OF SAI D GROUND OF APPEAL. 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF , ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN LEGAL PROFESSION. HE FILED HIS RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON 14.04.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME O F RS. 5,92,191 AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON 11.8.2014 DECLARED TAX ABLE INCOME OF RS. 9,04,655/-. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT FOR BO TH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 83,20,330/- FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND AT RS. 40,89,850/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 21,90,175/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED LONG TERM CA PITAL GAIN AND RS. 55,37,968/- ON ACCOUNT OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION FOR AY 2013-14. SIMILARLY, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,04,499/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND RS. 20,85,695/- BEING ENHANCED COM PENSATION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. ITA NOS. 3524 & 3525/DEL/2019 AYRS. 2013-14 & 2014-15 5 5. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, DESPITE ISSUANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICES, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE COMMON EXPARTE ORDE R PASSED BY HER SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. 5.1 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, SUB MITTED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR H EARING OF THE CASE. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS FOLLOW ED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. 3 8 ITD 320 (DEL.), THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. BN BHATTACHARYA 118 ITR 461 AND THE DECISION OF THE HO NBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLDER VS . CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP). FURTHER, WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERIT, THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ALSO REJECTED THE VARIOUS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HER. HE S UBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ONE FINAL OPP ORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. 7. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH S IDES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. ITA NOS. 3524 & 3525/DEL/2019 AYRS. 2013-14 & 2014-15 6 CIT(A), SHE PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER SUSTAINING TH E VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO FOR BOTH THE YEARS. CONSIDERING THE TOTALIT Y OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO R ESTORE THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO GRANT ONE FINAL O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE AND DECIDE THE APPEAL AS PER FACT AND LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HEREBY DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) AND SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE FAILING WHICH, THE LD. CIT(A) IS AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER, AS PER LAW. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.11.2020 . SD/- SD/- [SUCHITRA KAMBLE] [R.K. PANDA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 25.11.2020 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI