Subhash, Gautam Budh Nagar V. ITO, Ward- 3(4), Noida

ITA 3867/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0602 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 69; 148; 144; 142(1); 133(6); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3867/Del/2017 (Assessment Year : 2009-10 Subhash Dadupur, Dankaur, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP PAN No. EFVPS 6962 B Vs. ITO Ward – 3(4) Noida (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by --None-- Revenue by Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 04.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 04.08.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.03.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under : 2 3. Assessee is an individual. AO noted that as per AIR information, the assessee had purchased an immovable property for Rs.78,28,000/- during the F.Y. 2008-09. AO noted that to verify the transaction information was called for from Assessee u/s 133(6) of the Act but the same was not complied by the assessee. Accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 26.02.2016 which was served on the assessee. AO has noted that thereafter notices dated 17.05.2016 and 08.11.2016 were issued u/s 142(1) of the Act which were served on assessee had also remained un-complied. AO thereafter passed order u/s 144 r.w.s 148 of the Act vide order dated 08.12.2016 and determined the total income at Rs.79,78,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 30.03.2017 in Appeal No.264/2016-17/Noida dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: 1. “That the order passed by CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts and is liable to be annulled. 2. That the order passed by CIT(A) is bad in law as it is against the law of natural justice as having been passed without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 3. That the entire assessment proceedings and assessment by the Assessing Officer are bad in law as they are based on wrong AIR information that the assessee has purchased some property for Rs. 78,28,000/- during the Financial Year 2008-09 (A.Y. 2009-10), while the fact is that the assessee has not purchased any such property. 4. That even otherwise under the facts and circumstances of the case no addition under section 69 of the IT Act, 1961 can be sustained in 3 the case of the assessee as the assessee has not purchased any property alledged by the Assessing Officer. 5. That the appellant crave leave to add, alter, amend or delete any or all the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 5. On the present date of hearing, there is no appearance from the side of assessee nor there is any request for adjournment. In such a situation and considering the fact that the appeal has been filed in 2017 and there has been no appearance on behalf of the assessee in the past on any occasion, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee and after hearing the Learned DR. 6. Before us, Learned DR supported the order of AO. 7. We have heard the Learned DR and perused the material available on record. The perusal of CIT(A) order reveals that CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits. Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of I. T. Act mandate the CIT(A) to state the points in dispute and thereafter assign the reasons in support of his conclusion. We are of the view that by dismissing the appeal without considering the issue on merits, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the mandate required in Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. Further it is also a well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties and no parties should be condemned unheard. In view of these facts, we set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) dated 30.03.2017 and restore the issue 4 to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issues after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to furnish the details called for by the lower authorities. In view of our decision to restore the issue to CIT(A), we are not adjudicating on merits the grounds raised by the assessee. Thus the ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04.08.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 04.08.2022 PY* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI