Sh. Hari Singh Verma, Meerut V. ITO, Baraut

ITA 4620/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 462020114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDHIRANJAN SENAPATI
• Assessee Lawyers: V K GOEL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-2 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-4619/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2009-10) SMT. VEERMATI, C/O VINOD KUMAR GOEL, 282, BOUNDARY ROAD, CIVIL LINES, MEERUT. BJAPS3629B VS ITO, BARAUT & I.T.A .NO.-4620/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2009-10) HARI SINGH VERMA, C/O VINOD KUMAR GOEL, 282, BOUNDARY ROAD, CIVIL LINES, MEERUT. BJAPS3629B VS ITO, BARAUT APPELLANT BY SH. V.K. GOEL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. SUDHIRANJAN SENAPATI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 03.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.08.2015 ORDER BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AG AINST THE DIFFERENT IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), MEERUT DAT ED 18/03/2014 IN ITA NO. 4619/D/2014 & ORDER DATED 14/03/2014 IN ITA NO. 462 0/D/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 4619/D/14 IN THE CASE OF SMT. VEERMATI FOR A.Y. 2009-10 & IN ITA NO. 4620/D/14 IN THE CASE OF SH. HARI SINGH VERMA FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ARE READ AS UNDER : ITA NO. 4619/DEL/2014 : SMT. VEERMATI VS. ITO, BARA UT : A.Y. 2009-10 : 1. THAT THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND WAS DIED IN 2010 AND SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF SMT. VEERMATI L/H OF [LATE] SH. HARI SINGH VERMA. THE BOTH THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN BOTH TH E CASE THEREFORE SAME 2 I.T.A .NOS.-4619 & 4620/DEL/2014 INCOME CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN BOTH THE CASES. HENCE , THE CIT(A) IS IN ERROR IN CONFIRMING THE SAME WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE DETAI LS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT ON 13.12.2013 & 17.01.2014 NO CIT(A) WAS PRESE NT TO HEARD THE APPEAL AS HE WAS TRANSFERRED AS CIT, ADMINISTRATION, MEERUT A ND ON 17.02.2014 & 14.03.2014 THE ASSESSEE SEEK ADJOURNMENT BUT CIT(A) WAS NOT PRESENT. HENCE, ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) MEERUT ON 14.03.2014 AS EX P ARTE ORDER IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND LAW AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THAT ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) & AO IS NOT DECIDED ON MERITS HENCE, CONFIRMATION OF CIT(A) EX PARTE IS BAD IN LAW. ITA NO. 4620/DEL/2014 : SH. HARI SINGH VERMA VS. IT O, BARAUT : A.Y. 2009-10 : 1. THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DIED IN 2010 AND SIMILAR AD DITION WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF SMT. VEERMATI L/H OF [LATE] SH. HARI SINGH VERMA . THE BOTH THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN BOTH THE CASE THE REFORE SAME INCOME CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN BOTH THE CASES. HENCE, THE CIT(A) I S IN ERROR IN CONFIRMING THE SAME WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT ON 13.12.2013 & 17.01.2014 NO CIT(A) WAS PRESE NT TO HEARD THE APPEAL AS HE WAS TRANSFERRED AS CIT, ADMINISTRATION, MEERUT A ND ON 17.02.2014 & 14.03.2014 THE ASSESSEE SEEK ADJOURNMENT BUT CIT(A) WAS NOT PRESENT. HENCE, ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) MEERUT ON 14.03.2014 AS EX P ARTE ORDER IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND LAW AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THAT ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) & AO IS NOT DECIDED ON MERITS HENCE, CONFIRMATION OF CIT(A) EX PARTE IS BAD IN LAW. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE BOTH APPEALS TOGETHER BECAUSE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN BOTH APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL. THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE I AM DISPOSING THESE TWO APPEALS BY PASSING ONE CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 4. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES A RE NOT DISPUTED BY THE BOTH PARTIES. THEREFORE, NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER C ONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTIC E. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT G IVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING THEIR CLAIM BEFORE THEM . HE DREW MY ATTENTION TOWARDS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HE RE QUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY 3 I.T.A .NOS.-4619 & 4620/DEL/2014 THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ACCEPTED AND THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES MAY BE CANCELLED. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND STATED THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS ), MEERUT HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING THEI R CLAIM BEFORE HIM BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AVAILED THE OPPORTUNITY AND THE LD . FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DECIDED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE LAW. HE REQUESTED THAT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 7. I HAVE HEARD THE BOTH PARTIES PERUSED THE RELEV ANT RECORD AVAILABLE WITH ME. AFTER PERUSING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENU E AUTHORITIES I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH HIM AND THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DISMI SSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX- PARTE WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE. LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED ALMOST IDENTICAL IMPUGNED ORDE RS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE I AM REPRODUCING THE ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF S MT. VEERMATI W/O HARI SINGH VERMA IN ITA NO. 4619/D/2014 AS UNDER: APPELLATE ORDER AND GROUNDS OF DECISION U/S 250 O F THE I.T. ACT, 1961 THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 28.12.2011 PASSED BY ITO, BARAUT. IN COMPLIA NCE TO NOTICES U/S 250 OF THE ACT, NONE APPEARED. 2. FOLLOWING DATES OF HEARING WERE ALLOWED TO THE A PPELLANT: DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING/ADJOURNED DATE REMARKS 24.12.2013 09.01.2014 NO COMPLIANCE 10.02.2014 24.02.2014 NO COMPLIANCE 27.02.2014 18.03.2014 ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED ON 14.03.2014 3. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT MORE THAN SUFF ICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. HO WEVER, ON ALL THE DATES FIXED FOR HEAIRNG, THE APPELLANT EITHR HAS NOT MADE ANY C OMPLIANCE OR FILED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS. THIS IMPLIES THAT THE APPELLANT IS N OT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE 4 I.T.A .NOS.-4619 & 4620/DEL/2014 APPEAL FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM. SINCE, S UFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEING HEARD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT, NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT CAN BE GRANTED. THEREFORE, THE APPELA IS DISPOSED OFF ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD. 4. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAIL S AND EVIDENCES AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED I N MAKING ADDITIONS. THE SAME ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED. GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 8. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE AFORESAID ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH IS IDENTICAL IN BOTH THE APPEALS I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING THEIR CLAIM BEFORE THEM AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN A HURRY MANNER. 9. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I AM SETTING ASIDE T HE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFTER GIVING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/08/ 2015 SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 04/08/2015 *KAVITA, P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 5 I.T.A .NOS.-4619 & 4620/DEL/2014 SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 03.08.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 04.08. 2015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 04.08.2015 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 04.08.2015 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 04.08 .2015 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 04.08.2015 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 04.08.2015 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER