Sh. Dheeraj Seth, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3662/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2574 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC , NEW DELHI BEFORE S H. N. K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3662 /DEL/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 DHEERAJ SETH G - 7/172, SECTOR - 16, ROHINI NEW DELHI - 110085 PAN ALHPS5337E VS ITO WARD - 21(3) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY MS. GUNJAN JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY MS. AASHNA PAUL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 05/11 /2 0 18 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06 / 1 1 /2018 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: T HIS APPEAL B Y THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 22 , NEW DELHI DATED 2 4 . 0 2 .201 4 PERTAINING TO A. Y. 2008 - 09 . 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE READ : - 2 1. THAT IT BE HELD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 2. THA T IT BE HELD THAT THE BOTH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 AND 41 (10 HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT IT BE HELD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.22,52,972/ - MADE BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF UNEXP LAINED TRADE CREDITORS. 4. THAT IT BE HELD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF RS.90,000 / - IN BALANCES OF THE TRADE CREDITORS. 5. THAT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A. O. TO DETERMINE APPLICATION OF SECTION 41 (1 ) IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS AND TO ALLOW ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT OF BEING HEARD. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT DUE TO ISSUE BETWEEN T HE COUNSEL AND SUBSEQUENT HEALTH CONDITIONS OF ONE B .L. SAHNI REPRESENTING ASSESSEES CASE NEITHER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COULD BE ATTENDED PROPERLY NOR THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CIT(A) WAS PRESENTED PROPERLY. IT IS THE SAY OF THE COUNSEL THAT DUE TO IMPRO PER PRESENTATION OF THE FACTS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THE AD DITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO G ROSS IN JUSTICE TO THE APPELLANT. 4 . I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. I FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL , IF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE ATTENDED PROPERLY THE RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND F AIR PLAY I RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO 3 DECIDE THE ISSUES AFRESH AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA R D TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06 . 1 1 . 2 018. SD/ - ( N. K. BILLAIYA ) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER * NEHA* DATE: - 06 . 1 1 .2018 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 4 DATE OF DICTATION 06.11.2018 DATE O N WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 06.11.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 06.11.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 06.11.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACE D BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 06.11.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS 06.11.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 12.11.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER 5