Sh. Harish Kumar Bansal, Meerut V. ACIT, Meerut

ITA 3962/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96982 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN RAWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V K GOEL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Non passing of speaking order
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 2 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 396 2 /DEL/201 4 AY: 200 6 - 07 SH.H ARISH KUMAR BANSAL VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 1 C/O SH.VINOD KUMAR GOEL, 282 MEERUT BOUNDARY ROAD, CIVIL LINES MEERUT PAN: AAOPB 2100 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY : SH. V.K. GOEL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. ROBIN RAWAL, SR.D.R ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 28 .3.2014 OF LD.CIT(A) , MEERUT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 07 , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THAT LD.A.O. AS WELL AS LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THAT LD.A.O. AS WELL AS LD.CIT(A) IS UNJUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.3,72,500/ - BEING THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON LOANS DEDUCTIBLE FROM IN TEREST EARNED ON UNSECURED LOAN GIVEN TO M/S HARISH INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD. FOR WHICH SUCH LOANS WERE TAKEN AND LD.AO AS WELL AS LD.CIT(A) IS UNJUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE LOANS WERE TAKEN IN EARLIER YEAR AND INTEREST PAID ON THOSE LOANS IS CONTINUOUSLY BEING ALLOWED IN EARLIER YEARS. THE CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING A.Y. WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 3. THAT LD.A.O. AS WELL AS LD.CIT(A) IS UNJUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.75,000/ - U/S 80DD OF THE ACT. 4. THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS RIGHT TO ADD, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY GROUNDS DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDING. ITA NO. 396 2 /DEL/2014 A.Y. 200 6 - 07 SH. HARISH KUMAR BANSAL 2 2. THE FACTS AS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR CONVENIENCE. 3. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PA RTIES, PERUSED THE RECORD AVAILABLE BEFORE ME , SPECIALLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONG WITH PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 20 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES , WHICH INCLUDES PHOT O COPY OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME, CAPITAL A/C AND STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS, PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY FILED BEFORE AO, PHOTOCOPY OF DETAILS OF UNSECURED LOAN, PHOTO COPY OF CONFIRMATIONS AND PHOTO COPY OF CASE LAWS. 4. KEEPING IN VIEW THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS WE LL AS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS BEFORE ME IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 1 TO 20 PAGES, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM BEFORE HIM . NO DOUBT THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ISSUED VARIOUS NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NO - COOPERATIVE BEFORE HIM AND FILED APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT FOR ONE AND ANOTHER REASON S . THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DECIDED THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY PASSING A NON SPEAKING ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AND SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE RELEVANT PART OF THE LD.CIT(A) S ORDER PARAS 3 AND 4 AT PAGES 4 AND 5 ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW. 3. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT MORE THAN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT FILED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED MANY TIMES. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT EITHER HAS NOT MADE ANY COMPLIANCE OR HAS FILED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION. THIS IMPLIES THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM. SINCE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD, SO NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT CAN BE GRANTED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD. 4. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS AND EVIDENCES AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, IN THE ITA NO. 396 2 /DEL/2014 A.Y. 200 6 - 07 SH. HARISH KUMAR BANSAL 3 ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITIONS. THE SAME ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED. GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 5. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW, AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY. 6 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST AUGUST, 2015 . SD/ - ( H.S.SIDHU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: THE 21 ST AUGUST, 2015 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR