Ram Kumar Garg, Bulandshahr V. ITO, Bulandshahr

ITA 4309/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8079 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 27-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N J SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4309/DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 200 6 - 07 RAM KUMAR GARG, C/O - MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE 2, SUNDERPURI, BULANDSHAHR VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 , BULANDSHAHR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AFXPG2090J ASSESSEE BY : SH. SAURABH GUPTA, CA REVENUE BY : SH. N. J. SINGH , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 7 .04 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 .04 .201 6 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19 .03.2014 OF LD. CIT(A) , MEERUT . 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MEERUT DID NOT GIVE ENOUGH OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE CASE. THE LAST DATE FIXED FOR COMPLIANCE IS 19.03.2014, I TAKE THE ADJOURNMENT FOR THE SAME DATE AS THE ASSESSEE IS RETIRED 68 DAYS OLD PERSON AND HE IS NOT PHYSIC ALLY FIT ON THAT DATE. 2. THAT THE LD. AO IS ERRED IN ADDING RS.12,36,939/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH. ITA NO . 4309 /DEL /2014 RAM KUMAR GARG 2 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MEERUT WAS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE. 3. TH E MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE EX - PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 08.12.2011. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DISM ISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE BY OBSERVING THAT THE ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE GRANTED. T HE IMPUGNED ORDER IS REPRODUCED VERBATIM AS UNDER: THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 263/143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 08.12.2011 PASSED BY ITO, WARD - 3, BULANDSHAHAR. IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICES U/S 250 OF THE ACT, NONE APPEARED. 2. FOLLOWING DATES OF HEARING WERE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT: - DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING/ADJOURNED DATE REMARKS 03.12.2013 26.11.2013 AD JOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 16.01.2014. 16.01.2014 NO COMPLIANCE 07.02.2014 21.02.2014 NONE ATTENDED 28.02.2014 19.03.2014 AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH POST. NO FUR THER ITA NO . 4309 /DEL /2014 RAM KUMAR GARG 3 ADJOURNMENT CAN BE GRANTED. 3. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT MORE THAN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT EITHER HAS NOT MADE ANY COMPLIANCE OR FILED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION. THIS I MPLIES THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM. 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 ABSENC E OF THE SAME, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITIONS. THE SAME ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED. GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS G IVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN SEEKING ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS REFUSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 7 . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER MENTIONED THAT NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 03.12.2013 FOR FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 26.11.2013 . IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THE DATE OF HEARING WAS FIXED IN THE MONTHS OF NOVEMBER I.E. ON 26.11.2013 ITA NO . 4309 /DEL /2014 RAM KUMAR GARG 4 BY ISSUING THE NOTICE OF LATER DATE IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER I.E. ON 03.12.2013. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT AN APPLICATION FO R ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH POST FOR THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED ON 19.03.2014. HE SIMPLY STATED THAT NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT COULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT MENTIONING THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID APPLICATION AND WHAT WAS THE DIFFICULTY OF THE ASSESSEE FO R HIS NON - APPEARANCE ON 19.03.2014. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM . I, THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED A FRESH IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ( ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27 /04/2016 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27 /04/2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR