Ratan Kumar, Delhi V. ITO, Noida

ITA 4204/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4432 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. KULDIP SINGH , JM ITA NO. 4204/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012 - 1 3 RATAN KUMAR, C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADV., F - 26/124, S ECTOR - 7, ROHINI, DELHI - 110085 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1), NOIDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A MAPK4100B ASSESSEE BY : SH. KAPIL GOEL , ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. DEEPAK GARG , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 25 .09 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 . 0 9 .201 7 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2016 OF LD. CIT(A) - 1 , NOIDA . 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE EX - PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3 . FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2012 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.6,66,510/ - . LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE A O FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT EX - PARTE BY OBSERVING THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 20.03.2015 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPLIANCE ON 25.03.2015 BUT THE ASSESSEE DID ITA NO. 4204 /DEL /201 6 RATAN KUMAR 2 NOT FURNISH ANY REPLY ON THE GIVEN DATE . HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE APPEARED O N 26.03.2015 AND FURNISHED A REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 25.03.2015 ALONGWITH COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS AND LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) AND OBSERVED THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS AND VOUCHERS HAD BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.1,02,44,480/ - BY MAKING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUS TAINED THE ADDITION BY PASSING AN EX - PARTE ORDER. 4 . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TIME SINCE HE WAS TO CONTACT SENIOR AND EXPERIENCED COUNSEL TO REPRESENT HIS CASE WHICH INVOLVED HIGH D EMAND AND THEREFORE, REQUESTED THE ADJOURNMENT TO THE SECOND WEEK OF JULY 2016 BUT THE LD. CIT(A) AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON FOR REJECTING THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS WHICH WERE MADE BY THE AO BY PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 4204 /DEL /201 6 RATAN KUMAR 3 5 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NON - COOPERATIVE BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) , TH EREFORE, THE ADDITIONS WERE RIGHTLY MADE BY FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. 6 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON T HE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AO ADMITTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.03 .2015 THAT THE ASSESSEE APPEARED ON 26.03.2015 AND FURNISHED A REPLY ALONGWITH COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS AND LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE AO SIMPLY STATED THAT SOME INCOMPLETE CONFIRMATIONS IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE ATTACHED WHICH WERE NOT FOUND AC CEPTABLE BUT HE DID NOT ASSIGN ANY COGENT REASON FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS, EVEN HE HAD NOT POI NTED OUT WHAT WERE THE CONTENT S OF THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS TO WHY THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. SIMILARLY, THE LD. CIT(A) ALTHOUGH ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT FOR SECOND WEEK OF JULY 2016, BUT HE HAS NOT ASSIGNED ANY REASON AS TO WHY THE SAID REQUEST WAS NOT ACCEPTED. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM . WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE ITA NO. 4204 /DEL /201 6 RATAN KUMAR 4 ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . (O RD E R PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27 /0 9 /2017 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( KULDIP SINGH ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 27 /09 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RE SPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR