Manmeet Singh Sahani, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3601/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 360120114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P CHANDRAKER
• Assessee Lawyers: MANMEET SINGH SAHANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 3601 / DEL/ 201 2 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. N O. 3601/DEL/2012 A.Y. : 2006 - 07 MANMEET SINGH SAHANI 43, PUSA ROAD, (REAR SIDE) NEW DELHI 110 008 (PAN: AATPS8931P) VS. ITO, WARD 23(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SATISH KHOSLA, ADV., AND SH. MANMEET SINGH SAHANI (ASSESSEE) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. J .P. CHANDRAKER, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 22 - 9 - 2014 DATE OF ORDER : 22 - 9 - 2014 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : J M TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) - X II, NEW DELHI DATED 25.4.2012 P ERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO IS BAD IN LAW AND WRONG ON FACTS. 2. THAT THE LD. AO WRONGLY ADDED RS. 14,51,000/ - AS UNDISCLOSED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 3601 / DEL/ 201 2 2 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) E RRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,51,000/ - WITHOUT GOING IN TO THE MERIT OF THE CASE. 4. THAT THE APPELANT PRAYS TO ADD/ ALTER / AMEND ANY ONE OR ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF APPEAL. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE NOT IN D ISPUTE BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, NEED NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. CO UNS EL OF THE ASSESSEE SH. SATISH KHOSLA, ADVOCATE WHO HERE ALONGWITH THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT LD. FIRST APPE L LATE AUTHORITY HAD DE CIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), AS HE HAS NOT RECEIVED THE NOTICE FROM THE LD . CIT(A), DUE TO CHANGE OF HIS ADDRESS. BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DI SPUTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HE REQUESTED THAT SOME MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIAT E HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 3.1 ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER S OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUN S EL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO REPRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE HIM, BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICES WERE SENT BY SPEED POST FOR WHICH IT IS PRESUMED THAT ASSESSEE MUST HAVE RECEIVED WITHIN 3 DAYS BUT NEVER FILED ANY WRITTEN SUBMISS ION S ONLY ATTENDED TO FILE ADJOURN MENT APPLICATION ON THE DATES OF HEARING AND FINALLY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS UPHELD THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO BY DISMI S SING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT REPRESENTED. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE ITA NO. 3601 / DEL/ 201 2 3 OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THEREF O RE, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. WE CONSIDER THE REQUEST MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HERE ALONGWITH THE ASSES S EE IS DESERVED TO BE ACCEPTED AND SOME MORE OPPORTUNI TY SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPEL L ATE AUTHO RITY . IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE S IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDE R THE LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN C OURT ON 22/ 9 /20 1 4 . SD/ - SD/ - [ G.D. AGRAWAL ] [ H.S. SIDHU ] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 22 / 9 /201 4 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES