Salil Chaturvedi, Kanpur V. DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur

ITA 404/LKW/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6166 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PREETI SINGH
• Keywords: Salary income; Principle of natural justice; TDS
• Section: 69; 148; 69A

Judgement Text

I.T.A. Nos.403, 404, 405/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year:2015-16 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.403, 404 & 405/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Flat No. 604, Technocrat Apartment, CGHS Plot No. 25, Behind Suraj School, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana. PAN:AFAPC1319R Vs. DCIT-Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M. (A) These three appeals vide I.T.A. Nos.403, 404 & 405/Lkw/2023 have been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015-16 against separate appellate orders all dated 20/11/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058080329(1), No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058080359(1) and No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058081164(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. The grounds taken by the assessee are as under: Appellant by None Respondent by Dr. Preeti Singh, Addl. CIT (D.R.) I.T.A. Nos.403, 404, 405/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year:2015-16 2 I.T.A. No.403/Lkw/2023 “1. Because the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC-DELHI erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal vide Order Passed on 20.11.2023 prior to the date of hearing fixed on 24.11.2023 vide Notice bearing DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/F/APLJ/2023-24/1057819317(1) dated 09/11/2023 (Appeal No. NFAC/2014-15/10170707) violating the natural justice. 2. Because the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC-DELHI erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeals instead of disposing off the appeal on merit. 3. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi did not consider that Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in issuing the notice u/s 148 and making assessment. 4. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi did not consider that Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in assessing the salary income of Rs.73,87,444.00 instead of Rs.70,40,102/- and total income of Rs.68,77,256/-. 5. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi did not consider that Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making the addition of Rs.31,01,5007- under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi did not consider that Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi did not consider that Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in NOT giving credit of TDS from salary by employers while assessing the income from salary and raising demand. I.T.A. Nos.403, 404, 405/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year:2015-16 3 8. Because the Notice of demand and assessment order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 9. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi did not consider that Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in not allowing deductions under section 80C, SOD and 80TTA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” I.T.A. No.404/Lkw/2023 “1. Because the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC-DELHI erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal vide Order Passed on 20.11.2023 prior to the date of hearing fixed on 24.11.2023 vide Notice bearing DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/F/APL-1/2023-24/1057819335(1) dated 09/11/2023 (Appeal No. NFAC/2014-15/10175668) violating the natural justice. 2. Because the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC-DELHI erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeals instead of disposing off the appeal on merit. 3. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi did not consider that Assessing Officer is unjustified in imposing penalty of Rs.55,00,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.” I.T.A. No.405/Lkw/2023 “1. Because the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC-DELHI erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal vide Order Passed on 20.11.2023 prior to the date of hearing fixed on 28.11.2023 vide Notice bearing DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/F/APL-1/2023-24/1058004087(1) dated 09/11/2023 (Appeal No. NFAC/2014-15/10192771) violating the natural justice. 2. Because the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC-DELHI erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeals instead of disposing off the appeal on merit. I.T.A. Nos.403, 404, 405/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year:2015-16 4 3. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi did not consider that Assessing Officer is unjustified in imposing penalty of Rs.55,00,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 4. Because the notice of demand and assessment order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice.” (B) At the time of hearing before us, the appellant assessee was represented by none. Also, no request has been received from the side of the appellant assessee for adjournment of hearing. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, we heard the learned Sr. Departmental Representative. Having regard to ground No. 1 of appeal in each of the three appeals before us, Learned Sr. D.R. admitted that the act of the learned CIT(A) in dismissing the appeals vide order passed on 20/11/2023, even before the date of hearing fixed on 24/11/2023 (vide notices dated 09/11/2023) was not in order; and further, that this amounted to appellant assessee not being provided reasonable opportunity during the proceedings before the learned CIT(A). She stated that Revenue has no objection if the issues in dispute are restored back to the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass fresh appellate orders in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (C) In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) acted in undue haste in passing the impugned appellate orders on 20/11/2023 even before date of hearing fixed on 24/11/2023. We are further of the opinion, in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, that the act of learned CIT(A) in passing the impugned appellate orders was not in order, and further that this did not amount to reasonable opportunity I.T.A. Nos.403, 404, 405/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year:2015-16 5 being provided to the appellant assessee. Therefore, we set aside the impugned appellate orders in all the three appeals before us, and we direct the learned CIT(A) to pass denovo appellate order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All the grounds of appeal in the three appeals before us are treated as disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions. (D) In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 01/07/2024) Sd/. Sd/. (SUBHASH MALGURIA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:01/07/2024 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., 5. CIT(A) Assistant Registrar