Goutam Rungta, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Noida

ITA 3880/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3738 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3880/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 GOUTAM RUNGTA, KOLKATA VS. ITO, WARD-1(4), NOIDA PAN : ACQPR3314L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. VED JAIN, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. AMIT JAIN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 23-10-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 -10-2017 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 30 TH MARCH, 2017 OF THE CIT(A)-I, NOIDA RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)[CIT(A)] IS BAD, BOTH IN THE EYES OF LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS. 2. (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN PASSING THE ORDER EX PARTE WITHOUT GIVING ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. (II) THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACT, BECAUSE DESPITE ISSUING THE NOTICE DATED 27/03/2017 FIXING THE CASE FOR 13/04/2017, THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY CIT(A) AS ON 30/03/2017 ONLY. 3. (I)ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER P ASSED BY AO UNDER SECTION 147, READ WITH SECTION 148, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ORDER IS BAD AND LIABLE TO 2 ITA NO.3880/DEL/2017 (GOUTAM RUNGTA) BE QUASHED AS THE CONDITION AND PROCEDURE PRESCRIBE D UNDER THE STATUTE HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED AND COMPLIED WITH. (II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE AO, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATE D UNDER SECTION 148 ARE BAD IN LAW AS THERE IS NO LIVE NEXUS BETWEEN THE REASON S RECORDED AND THE BELIEF FORMED BY THE AO. 4. (I)ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.20,90,000/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. (II) THAT THE ADDITION IN BAD LAW AS THE INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF THE DISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VERY OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THERE WAS NON-COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE AO OR THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THIS MATTER IS R ESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH INCLUDI NG THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION. 3. THE LD. DR WHILE OPPOSING THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THERE WAS N O APPEARANCE BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR WHICH EX PARTE ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX AT KOLKATA AND THEREFO RE THE PRESENT AO HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE T OTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. I DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH INCLUDING THAT OF JURISDICTION. THE AO SHALL GIVE DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACT AND LAW. I HOLD AND DIRECT ACCOR DINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY 3 ITA NO.3880/DEL/2017 (GOUTAM RUNGTA) THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG ITSELF I.E. ON 23.10.2017). SDSD/- S/- SD/- SD/- SD/- SD/- (R. K. PA NDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:23-10-2017 BINITA COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE DRP-IV, NEW DELHI 4) THE DR, I.T.A.T., NEW DELHI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI 4 ITA NO.3880/DEL/2017 (GOUTAM RUNGTA) S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 23.10.2017 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 23.10.2017 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON .2017 SR. PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER .2017 SR. PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK .2017 SR. PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER