Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3807 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
26-10-2017
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
04-08-2016
Judgement Text
1 ITA NOS. 4317, 4318 & 4319/DEL/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4317/DEL/201 6 ( A.Y 2012-13) ITA NO. 4318/DEL/201 6 ( A.Y 2012-13) ITA NO. 4319/DEL/201 6 ( A.Y 2012-13) ANTO NARMAN PETER MZ-40, ANSAL FORTUNE ARCADE, SECTOR-18 NOIDA AHHPP7430M (APPELLANT) VS DCIT CIRCLE-1 NOIDA (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. A. K. KHURANA, FCA RESPONDENT BY SH. B. RAMANJANEYULU SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2016 PASSED BY CIT(A)-1, NOIDA FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 4317/DEL/2016 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, NO DIA (CIT(A) ) ERRED IN REJECTING AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON FIRST I NSTANCE AND PASSED AN ORDER WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) BEING AGAINST THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BE QUASHED AS BEING VOID AB INITIO AND/OR ILLEGAL. DATE OF HEARING 24.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26.10.2017 2 ITA NOS. 4317, 4318 & 4319/DEL/2016 3. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD.CIT(A) IS BAD IN LA W AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE. 4. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN STATING NEITHER THE APPELLANT HAS SOUGHT ANY CONDONATION OF THE DELAY NOR HAS GIVEN ANY EXPL ANATION FOR DELAY IN FILING APPEAL LATE. IN VIEW OF THIS THE DELAY IN FILING TH E APPEAL CANNOT BE CONDONED. WHEREAS THE APPELLANT FILED THE APPEAL IN TIME AS H E RECEIVED THE DEMAND NOTICE & ASSESSMENT ORDER LATE WHICH IS APPARENT FR OM THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,94,91,600/- AS AGAINST THE INCOME RETURNED AGG REGATING TO RS.16,52,600/-. 6. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED SUSTAINING THE ADDI TION OF RS.28,39,000/- AND TREATED IT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF THE AS SESSEE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 7. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE A DDITION OF RS.1,50- ,00,000/- RELATED TO SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AS INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 8. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE I NTEREST CHARGED U/S 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NO. 4318/DEL/2016 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, NO DIA (CIT(A) ) ERRED IN REJECTING AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON FIRST I NSTANCE AND PASSED AN ORDER WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) BEING AGAINST THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BE QUASHED AS BEING VOID AB INITIO AND/OR ILLEGAL. 3. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD.CIT(A) IS BAD IN LA W AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE. 4. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN STATING NEITHER THE APPELLANT HAS SOUGHT ANY CONDONATION OF THE DELAY NOR HAS GIVEN ANY EXPL ANATION FOR DELAY IN FILING APPEAL LATE. IN VIEW OF THIS THE DELAY IN FILING TH E APPEAL CANNOT BE CONDONED. WHEREAS THE APPELLANT FILED THE APPEAL IN TIME AS H E RECEIVED THE DEMAND NOTICE & ASSESSMENT ORDER LATE WHICH IS APPARENT FR OM THE CERTIFIED COPY OF 3 ITA NOS. 4317, 4318 & 4319/DEL/2016 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. THAT THE LD.CIT(A)-1 ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE PE NALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT OF RS.55.15.00/-. 6. THAT THE LD.CIT(A)-1 ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ALL EGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONCRETE EXPLANATION FOR THE TRANSACTION OF RS. 1,50,00,000/-. 7. THAT THE LD.CIT(A)-1 ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ALL EGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNEXPLAINED CASH/CREDITS U/S 68 AMOUNTING TO RS .28,39,000/-. ITA NO. 4319/DEL/2016 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, N ODIA (CIT(A) ) ERRED IN REJECTING AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON FIRST I NSTANCE AND PASSED AN ORDER WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) BEING AGAINST THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BE QUASHED AS BEING VOID AB INITIO AND/OR ILLEGAL. 3. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD.CIT(A) IS BAD IN LA W AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE. 4. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN STATING NEITHER THE APPELLANT HAS SOUGHT ANY CONDONATION OF THE DELAY NOR HAS GIVEN ANY EXPL ANATION FOR DELAY IN FILING APPEAL LATE. IN VIEW OF THIS THE DELAY IN FILING TH E APPEAL CANNOT BE CONDONED. WHEREAS THE APPELLANT FILED THE APPEAL IN TIME AS H E RECEIVED THE DEMAND NOTICE & ASSESSMENT ORDER LATE WHICH IS APPARENT FR OM THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. THAT THE LD.CIT(A)-1 ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE IM POSED PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE WAS NOT REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A). SINCE THE CIT(A) PASSED EX- PARTE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPO RTUNITY TO REPRESENT HIS CASE. IN FACT, THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE ON GROUND OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BUT THERE IS NO DELAY IN FILING AP PEALS. HENCE THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE. 4. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE AN 4 ITA NOS. 4317, 4318 & 4319/DEL/2016 ADDITION. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO AVAIL. TH EREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED TH E CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 29/07/2016. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, IT CA N BE SEEN THAT BEFORE THE CIT(A) NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E CIT(A) DECIDED THE MATTER EX-PARTE WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS OF THE CASE. TH EREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THIS MATTER IS REMITTED BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR DECIDING ALL THE ISSUES AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY, PR OPER HEARING SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26TH OCTOBE R, 2017 . SD/- SD/- (N. K. SAINI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 26/10/2017 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 5 ITA NOS. 4317, 4318 & 4319/DEL/2016 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 24/10/2017 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 24/10/2017 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .2017 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 26.10.2017 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 2 6 .10.2017 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.
