Mr. Harvinder Singh, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3724/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 372420114 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JAISWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MOHIT SACHDEVA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - I , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM ITA NO. 3724 /DEL/201 5 : ASSTT. YEAR : 200 0 - 0 1 HARVINDER SINGH, F - 117, MANSAROVER GARDEN, NEW DELHI - 1100 15 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 27(2 ), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A MAPS9451K ASSESSEE BY : SH. MOHIT SACHDEVA, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. K. K. JAISWAL , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 17 .0 8 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.08 .2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2014 OF LD. CIT (A) - V, NEW DELHI . 2 . FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THAT IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS IN FACTS AND IN LAW AND IS BASED ON EXTRANEOUS CONS IDERATION AND AGAINST THE PROVISION OF THE ACT. 2. THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE APPELLANT WAS NOT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE AS THE COUNSEL SHRI SURESH SINGHAL, CA , ASSU RED THAT HE IS ATTENDING THE CASE FROM TIME T O TIME AND ALL THE NOTICE RECEIVED FROM LD. CIT(A) WAS FORWARDED TO HIM FOR DOING THE NEEDFUL. HOWEVER, ALL OF SUDDEN NOTICE APPELLANT RECEIVED NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) ITA NO.3724 /DEL /2015 HARVINDER SINGH 2 AND THEN IT CAME TO OUR KNOWLEDGE THAT EXPARTE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) DUE TO N ON APPEARANCE OF THE COUNSEL. 3. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OR RESERVING THE RIGHT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALT ER, ADD OR FORGO ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 3 . FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THIS CASE WAS REOPENED ON 29.03.2007 U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), O N THE B ASIS OF AN INFORMATION THAT AN INCOME OF RS. 3,00,000/ - ESCAPED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED . IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, T HE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF RETURN DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,92,000/ - . T HE AO HOWEVER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 8,99,000/ - BY MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,00,000/ - WHICH WERE APPEARING AS CREDIT ENTRY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE . HE ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 7,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID F OR THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. 4 . BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY PASSING THE EX - PARTE ORDER. ITA NO.3724 /DEL /2015 HARVINDER SINGH 3 5 . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S REGULARLY APPEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND CAME TO KNOW THAT THAT EX - PARTE ORDER WAS PASSED ONLY AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NON - CORPORATIVE, SO THERE WAS NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DECIDE THE CASE E X - PARTE. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT LAST NOTICE WAS ISSUE D ON 20.01.2014 WHEN THE C ASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 05.02.2014. HOWEVER, NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS TO WHETHER THE SAID NOTICE WAS ACTUALLY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. IN THE PRES ENT CASE, SINCE NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. I, THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW A FTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE AND NOT TO SEEK UNDUE OR UNWARRANTED ADJOURNMENTS. ITA NO.3724 /DEL /2015 HARVINDER SINGH 4 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ( ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17/08 /2015 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17/08 /2015 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APP EALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR