Jitendra Kumar, Gautam Budh Nagar V. ITO WARD - 1(5), Noida

ITA 4442/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9883 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 250; 68; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4442/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 JITENDRA KUMAR S/O SH. SATBIR SINGH, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, H. NO. 151, VILL- LADDPURA, WARD-1(5), NEW DELHI NEAR INDIAN BANK, GREATER NOIDA DANKAURN, G.B. NAGAR, U.P. (PAN:AOOPK4133Q) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 29.12.2017 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I, NOIDA, RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN LAW, THE HONBLE CIT(APPEAL) HAD ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INCOME ASSE SSED OF THE APPELLANT BY LD AO AT RS. 26,30,000.00/,INSTEAD OF RETURNED INCOME OF RS 1,09670, AS SUCH AGGREGATE ADDITION OF RS 26,30, 000.00- PLEASE BE DELETED. 2. THAT THE HONBLE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FA CT THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WERE MADE WITHOUT GETTING PROPER OPPORTUNITY AND HONBLE CIT PASSED APPELLATE ORDER U/S 250 OF INCOME TAX ACTL961. 3. THAT THE HONBLE CIT (APPEAL) HAD ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 26,30,000/ ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED- BEING WHOLLY BASED ON CONJECTURE AND SURMISES AND BEING UNTRUE, THE SAME MUST BE DELETED. 4. SUBMISSION IS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING AP PELLATE ASSESSMENT LD CIT-I NOIDA. THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME O F RS. 26,30,000.00/- WAS RECEIVED FROM ASSESSEE FATHER WH O HAD RECEIVED COMPENSATION OF COMPULSORY LAND. THE SAME IS EXPLAI NED U/S 68 OF THE 2 INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY TAX LIABILITY AS PER U/S 68 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 5. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW IN VIOLATION OF RUDIMENTARY PRINCIPAL OF CONTEMPORA RY JURISPRUDENCE. 6. THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1) (C) ARE NO T APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT. 7. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, NOIDA IS A CLEAR CUT CASE OF MISUNDERSTAND ING AND WRONG INTERPRETATION OF LAW. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO. 36, IN SPITE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED APPEARED NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR A DJOURNMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CAS E, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOT ICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE I N FORM NO. 36. THEREFORE, I AM DISPOSING THIS APPEAL EX PARTE ASSE SSEE AFTER HEARING LEARNED DR. 3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVE NIENCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.12.2017 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- ORDER U/S 250 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINS T AN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.03.2016 PASSED BY THE LD. AO U/S 147/143(3) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 27,39,670/- AGAINST RETURN OF INCOME NOT FILED. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE APPELLANT HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL . 2. THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT WAS FIXED FOR HEARIN G FOR 06.12.2016, 29.12.2016, 11.04.2017, AND AGAIN FOR 0 7.09.2017. THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE. NEITHER THE APPELLANT H AS ENTERED APPEARANCE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED. IT APPEARS THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT SERIOUS TO PROSEC UTE ITS CASE, THEREFORE, NO MEANINGFUL PURPOSE IS TO BE SERVED BY KEEPING THE APPEAL PENDING. IN VIEW OF THE PERSISTENT NON PROSE CUTION OF APPEAL 3 BY THE APPELLANT THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DISMISSED FO R NON PROSECUTION. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS CONFI RMED. 4. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDER , I AM OF THE VIEW THAT LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED A N EX PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE AND IMPUGNED ORDER IS ALSO NON SPEAKING WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. THEREFORE, I AM CANCELLING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.12.2017 AND SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE LEARNED FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING S UFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 06/01/2020. SD/- [H .S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 06/01/2020 SH COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES