Sh. Ajeet Singh, Bulandshahr V. ITO, Bulandshahr

ITA 4150/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 415020114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 02-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4150/ DEL/ 2014 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4150 /DEL/201 4 A.Y. 200 9 - 10 SH. AJEET SINGH S/O SH. JAWAHAR SINGH, VILLAGE IKLADI POST OFFICE KESHOPUR SATHLA, DISTT. BULANDSHAHR (UP) (PAN: A ZMPS1720Q) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BULANDSHAHR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. TARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SUJIT KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 02 - 0 9 - 2015 DATE OF ORDER : 02 - 0 9 - 2015 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : J M TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ), MEERUT DATED 28 . 3 .201 4 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ULS 250, WITHOUT AFFORDING THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY AND DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. 2 . THAT HAVING REGARD TO FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) WAS N OT JU S TIFIED IN PASSING AN ORDER OF DISMI S SAL OF APPEAL BY REJECTING THE ADJOUR NMENT ITA NO. 4150/ DEL/ 2014 2 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY, WHO WAS BUSY IN PLEADING THE TIME BARRING MATTERS. 3 . THAT HAVING REGARD TO FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAININ G AN ADDITION OF RS 12,00,000/ - , DEPOSITED BY APPELLANT IN HIS SAVING BANK ALE, OF WHICH SOURCE HAS BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND EVIDENCES ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD OF A.O. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, MODIF Y, DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE , SHRI TARUN KUMAR HAS STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, H E REQUESTE D THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR, SH. SUJEET KUMAR HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO. 4150/ DEL/ 2014 3 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE REPRODUCING THE HEREUNDER THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) : - 2. FOLLOWING DATES OF HEARING WERE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT: - DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING/ ADJOURNED DATE REMARKS 24.12.2013 16.1.2014 NO COMPLIANCE 07.2.2014 21.2.2014 NO COMPLIANCE 28.2.2014 19.3.2014 ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. 19.3.2014 28.3.2014 ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED. THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED. 3. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT M ORE THAN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. 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 F OR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM. 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 ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITIONS. THE SAME HEREBY CONFIRMED. GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 4150/ DEL/ 2014 4 5.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT NO DOUBT THAT ASSESSEE REMAINED NON - COOPERATIVE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. 28.3.2014, ASSESSEE FILED THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION, WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, O NE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS REQUIRED TO BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM OF BEING HEARD. ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT BACK THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GRANTED TO T HE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD, TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) AND NOT TO TAKE UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN C OURT ON 0 2 / 09 /20 15. SD / - S D / - [ T.S. KAPOOR ] [ H.S. SIDHU ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 02 / 09 /201 5 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES