Ruchi Kalia, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 40(1), New Delhi

ITA 3686/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6709 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 143(2); 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI SMC BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3686/DEL/2019 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11] RUCHI KALIA, VS. ITO, WARD-40(1), A-2/132, PRATEEK APPARTMENTS, ROOM NO. 1707, PASCHIM VIHAR, CIVI CETNRE, NEW DELHI 2 NEW DELHI 110 063 (PAN: BBFPK9271J) [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY: SHRI PRAMOD JAIN, CA REVENUE BY : SMT. RINKU SINGH, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS-14], NEW DELHI DATED 06.11.2018 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 O N THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE AO ERRED IN INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 68 OF THE ACT. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDIT ION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE AO ERRED IN MAKING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHIC H MAKES THE WHOLE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NULL AND VOID. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS. 16,22,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) AND AO ERRED IN PASSING THE ORD ER WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 2 6. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO IS BASED IN ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW. 7. THAT THE AO ERRED IN INITIATING PENALTY U/S. 271(1) . 8. THAT THE AO AND LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN NOT FOLLO WING VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND ITAT. 9. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MOD IFY OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. PRAYER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN VIEW OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED T HAT:- 1. ORDER PASSED U/S. 144/147 BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE; 2. ADDITION OF RS. 16,22,500/- BE DELETED AND 3. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1) OF THE ACT BE DROPPED. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE N OT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY FOR SUBSTANTI ATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE IS H AVING ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM IN DISPUTE AND REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASI DE TO THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRES H, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, BUT HAS NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS O BJECTION ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE OR DERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) IS EXPARTE AND NON-SPEAKING ORDER. THEREFORE, IN T HE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I AM SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE T O THE LD. CIT(A) 3 WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AS P ER LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE A SSESSEE AND ALSO CONSIDER ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IF ANY. 5.1 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND NON-COOPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, I AM DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE THROUGH TH IS COUNSEL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 21.04.2020 AT 10.00 AM FOR HEARING. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO ISSUE THE NOTICE FOR 21.04.2020, BECAUSE THIS ORDER HAS ALREADY BEE N PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 06.02.2020. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:06-02-2020 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) ASST. REGISTRAR, 5. DR ITAT, NEW DELHI