Sh. Narender Kumar Hooda, Rohtak V. ITO, Sonepat

ITA 4142/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3591 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H K LAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4142/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI NARENDER KUMAR HOODA, C/O N.C. GARG, CA, M.G. ROAD, ROHTAK. PAN : ABVPH7596L VS. ITO, WARD-4, SONEPAT, H.Q. AT ROHTAK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ROHTAK. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAVI PRATAP MALL, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI H.K. LAL, SR. DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DATED 13 TH AUGUST, 2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN LAW AND FAC T IN IMPOSING A PENALTY OF RS.200000/- U/S 271D OF THE ACT, IN SP ITE OF THE FACT THAT THE LOAN WAS ACCEPTED THROUGH CHEQUE AND THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.200000/-. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FURTHER FAILED TO APPR ECIATE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT TO ESTAB LISH THAT THE PENALTY WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIO NS OF LAW AND THEREFORE UNSUSTAINABLE. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW A ND FACTS IN ITA NO.4142/DEL/2009 2 PASSING THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL ON 13.08.09 IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 26.08.09. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND O R ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT (A) HAD ADJOURNED THE MATTER TO 26 TH AUGUST, 2009. HOWEVER, HE HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 13 TH AUGUST, 2009. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT WILL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FI LE OF CIT (A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS FRESH ORDER AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNIT Y OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE CAREFULL Y GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (A). THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 13 TH AUGUST, 2009. IN GROUND NO.4 IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY S TATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASE WAS FIXED BY THE CIT (A) FOR 26 TH AUGUST, 2009 AND HE HAS PASSED ORDER ON 13 TH AUGUST, 2009. THE FACTS STATED IN GROUNDS OF APPE AL HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY BRINGING ANY MATERIA L ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSERTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS GROUNDS OF AP PEAL IS INCORRECT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT I T WILL SERVE THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED TO BE ALLOWED. 6. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.07. 2010. SD/- SD/- [R.C. SHARMA] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 19.07.2010. ITA NO.4142/DEL/2009 3 DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES