ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Joginder Singh Tyagi, New Delhi

ITA 416/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7595 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV DUDEJA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 416/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ITO, VS. JOGINDER SINGH TYAGI, WARD 26(3), ROOM NO. 314-D, WZ-C-31 & 32, VIKAS BHAWAN, ARYA SAMAJ ROAD, UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. ABGPT9122R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. GAURAV DUDEJA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.02.2011 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX- (APPEALS)-XXIV, NEW DELHI FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ON THE F OLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN 2. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,58,433/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 3. IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE AO NOT TO ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. 4. IN MISQUOTING THE FACT THAT THE AO NEITHER EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NOT DID HE GO INTO THE MERITS O F THE SAME, WHEREAS THE AO WAS DIRECTED IN REMAND REPORT TO GIV E HIS COMMENTS ONLY ON ACCEPTANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE. ITA NO. 416/D/2013 JOGINDER SINGH TYAGI 2 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER OR AME ND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL ON 23/0 1/2013 WHICH CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BENCH ON 30/07/2014 BY ISSUING A NOTICE THROUGH REGISTERED POST TO THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSEE N OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON 30/07/2014 AND THE BENCH ADJOURN THE HEARING TO 11/11/2014 AND ISSUED NOTICE THROUGH DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. IN COMPLIANCE OF THE SAME THE OFFI CE ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AS WEL L AS BY REGISTERED POST TO THE ASSESSEE FOR 11/11/2014. IN SPITE OF T HE SAME ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AGAIN AND AGAIN THEREFORE, WE DECID ED TO PROCEED EX- PARTE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING LD. DR. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. DR STATED THAT THE L D. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDE R RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS IN DISPUTE WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND AGAINST RULE 46A O F THE IT RULES, 1962. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE FILED A COPY OF JUDGME NT DATED 18/05/2011 PASSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CA SE OF ITA NO. 1501/2010 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. MODERN CHARITA BLE FOUNDATION. HE REQUESTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE CANCELLED AND DIRECTION MAY BE ISSUED TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT O PPORTUNITY TO THE AO BEFORE PASSING ANY ORDER ON THE ADMISSION OF ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND GONE THROUGH THE OR DER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY SPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE ITA NO. 416/D/2013 JOGINDER SINGH TYAGI 3 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CITED BY LD. DR AND WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT PRO VIDED A SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ADMISSION OF ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS IN DISPUTE ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVI DENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO T HE AO TO GO INTO THE VERACITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR WHICH THE AO IS LEGALLY ENTITLED. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS CANCELLED AND THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SET ASIDE TO THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITH A D IRECTION TO GIVE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO BEFORE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE AND ALLOW HIM TO GO INTO THE VERACITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND PASSED THE SPEAKING ORDER AFTER GIVING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE ALSO. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/11/2014 SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11/11/2014 *KAVITA, P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 416/D/2013 JOGINDER SINGH TYAGI 4