Satbir Sagwal, Karnal V. PrCIT, Karnal

ITA 3977/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3171 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN TH E INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DE LHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT HEARING) BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3977 /D EL /201 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 1 - 12 SATBIR SAGWAL, C/O SHRI T EJ MOHAN SINGH, ADVOCATES, 527, SECTOR - 10D, CHANDIGARH. PAN : BDOPS3759N VS PR. CIT, KARNAL. (APP ELL A NT ) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE RE VENUE BY : SHRI VIPUL KASHYAP, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 8 . 1 1 . 20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 8 . 1 1 . 20 20 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2018 OF THE CIT(A) , KARNAL, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 1 - 12 . 2. THE ASSESSEE I N HI S VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS CHALLENGED THE EX PARTE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE VARIOUS ADDITION S MADE BY THE AO. ITA NO. 3977 / D EL /201 9 2 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AO, IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/263, DETERMINED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,08,67,030/ - AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.1,23,000/ - AS AGAINST THE INCOME DETERMINED U/S 143(3) AT RS.3,66,230/ - WHEREIN HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,05,00,880/ - . SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) DESPITE NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES GR ANTED, THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND, DESPITE NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED BY THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE FOR WHICH THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. HOWEVER, HE HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERIT WHICH HE IS REQUIRED TO DO INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF TH E CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO GRANT ONE FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACT AND LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HEREBY DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE , FAILING WHICH THE L D.CIT(A) IS AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PER LAW. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 3977 / D EL /201 9 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DE CISION WAS PRONOUNCED ON CONCLUSION OF VIRTUAL HEARING ON 1 7 TH NOVEMBER, 2020 ITSELF . SD/ - SD/ - ( SUCHITRA KAMBLE ) ( R. K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 8 TH NOVEMBER, 2020. DK COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI