Sh. Pradeep Kumar Singhal, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3715/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3381 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K CHATURVEDI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Assessment record; Time period of passing order
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3715/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 PRADEEP KUMAR SINGHAL, C/O. M/S. SUBHASH MITTAL & ASSOCIATES, CA, 512A, DEEP SHIKHA, 8, RAJINDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI. PAN : ALXPS7699M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. K. CHATURVEDI, CA DEPARTMENT BY : MS. YAMINI, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 20-11-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-11-2017 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2014 OF CIT(A)- XXIV, NEW DELHI RELATING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNA L VIDE ORDER DATED 13.06.2016 FOR NON-PROSECUTION. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE MA NO.278/DEL/2016 ORDER DATED 22.09.2017 RECALLED ITS EARLIER ORDER. HENCE, THIS IS A RECALLED MATTER. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT THE ACTION OF THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- XXIV, NEW DELHI BY NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, IS UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE NATURAL LAW AND JUSTICE. 2. THAT THE ACTION OF THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXIV, NEW DELHI BY CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFF ICER WHO PASSED HIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT SER VICE OF ANY NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT 2 ITA NO.3715/DEL/2014 AND THE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT OF A UNSECURED LOAN AT RS.7.00 LAC IS UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE NATURAL LAW AND JUSTICE. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/DELETE/MO DIFY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8,56,010/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) THROUGH AFFIXTURE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.15,56,01 0/-. 5. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APP EAL. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEAL AFTER A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AND THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION REGARDING SUCH DELAY IN FI LING OF THE APPEAL. HE, THEREFORE, DID NOT ADMIT THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND T HAT THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE AND, THEREFORE, THE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A N AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE REASONS AS TO WHY THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS UNDER A BONA-FIDE BELIEF THAT THE RETURN FILED HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY T HE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. NO NOTICE FOR RECOVERY WAS ALSO RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE. ONLY WHEN THE 3 ITA NO.3715/DEL/2014 ASSESSEE RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE CONCERNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER/STAFF FOR COLLECTING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE COLLE CTED THE SAME PERSONALLY ON 28.01.2013. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REQUESTED THE LD. CI T(A) TO VERIFY THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT VERIFYING THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD T HAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BE CONDONED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE DELETED. 8. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IN TIME. FURTHER, THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.35 IS THE SAME ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE, WHICH IS ALSO THE SAME ADDRESS IN T HE RETURN FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE CONDUCT OF THE A SSESSEE SHOWS THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONDONING SUCH DELAY. SHE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) BE UPHELD AND THE GROUND S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 15.09.2008 ISSUED AND S ENT THROUGH SPEED POST WAS 4 ITA NO.3715/DEL/2014 RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARK NO SUCH PERSON. THEREAFTER, THE SAME WAS SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH AFFIXTU RE AND SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO SUCH NOTICE TWICE, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE I.T. ACT. I FIND ALTHOUG H THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) REGARDING THE REASONS FOR SUC H DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT AND REQUESTED HIM TO VERIFY THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. I FIND LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT VERIFIED THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTIC E, I DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECT ION TO VERIFY THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND SYMPATHETICALLY RE-CONSIDER AS TO WHETH ER THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING SU CH DELAY ESPECIALLY WHEN THE NOTICE/ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE SERVED THROUGH AFFIXT URE. THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER GIVING D UE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. I HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF I.E. ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017. SD/- (R. K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 20-11-2017. SUJEET 5 ITA NO.3715/DEL/2014 COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT 4) THE CIT(A) 5) THE DR, I.T.A.T., NEW DELHI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI