PAWAN KUMAR ARORA, NEW DELHI V. ITO, WARD- 41(5), NEW DELHI

ITA 3836/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5085 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSHMA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: JAGDISH AJMANI
• Section: 143(3); 250; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.AS. NO.3836/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 PAWAN KUMAR ARORA, C-1347, TOP FLOOR, SUDERSHAN PARK, NEW DELHI. V. ITO, WARD-41(5), NEW DELHI. TAN/PAN: ATMPA2900J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI JAGDISH AJMANI, CA RESPONDENT BY: SMT. SUSHMA SINGH, CIT-D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 11 02 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13 02 2020 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.11.2016, PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, NEW DELHI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S.143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 1,57,20,144/- WITHOUT ENSURING AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250 OF THE ACT WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSE E OR NOT. 2. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN PAS SING THE I.T.A. NO.3836/DEL/2017 2 IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT GIVING A SUFFICIENT AND PROP ER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS THEREFORE PASSED IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTIC E. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL U\S 143(3) BY DISCUSSING THE PENALTY ORDER U\S271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E LD. AO HAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1.96 CRORE WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD MATERIAL OR EVIDEN CE OR ANY OTHER BASIS OF ESTIMATION. 5. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFORMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,60,98,093 ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASE IN CURRENT LIABI LITY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE LIABILITY REPRESENT TRADE CREDIT FROM KWALITY DAIRY INDIA LTD. WHICH IS A LISTED COM PANY AND CONFORMATION OF WHICH WAS DULY SUBMITTED WITH THE L D. AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED EX-PARTE BY THE LD. CIT (A). THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE CIT (A) COULD NOT BE MADE FOR THE REASON THAT THE COUNSEL W HO WAS HANDLING THE MATTER ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT WELL AND EVENTUALLY HE HAD EXPIRED, THEREFORE, COMPLIANC E COULD NOT BE MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, HE PRAYED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE REST ORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE FURTHER IN FORMED THAT BECAUSE OF THIS REASON ALSO PROPER REPRESENTATION C OULD NOT I.T.A. NO.3836/DEL/2017 3 BE MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE THUS, SUBM ITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE MATTER SHOULD BE RE STORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LD. DR. TOO DOES NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE DECIDED AFRESH. 3. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, WE FIND THAT LETTERS AND NOTICES SENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT SERVED. THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERIN G FROM ACUTE ILLNESS BY H1N1 VIRUS. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAKING HUGE ADDITIO NS OF RS.11,62,31,684/-. AGAIN DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY WAY OF EX-PARTE ORDER. IN THE WAKE OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS S UFFERING FROM SERIOUS ILLNESS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS AND SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AGAIN AGGRAVATED BY WHEN THE COUNSEL WHO WAS AUTHORIZED TO HANDLE THE M ATTER HAD DIED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUES AS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AFRESH AN D IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. I.T.A. NO.3836/DEL/2017 4 SD/- SD/- [O.P. KANT] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 PKK: