Kartar Singh Chouhan, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4711/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81948 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARE AS UNDER THAT PASSED
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Non compliance
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4711 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) KARTAR SINGH CHOUHAN 107, AMRIT KAUR MARKET, PAHARGANJ, NEW DELHI PAN:AKMPC3558P VS. ITO, WARD - 38(4) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL ARISES FROM AN ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 OF THE LD CIT(A) - XX VIII, NEW DELHI AND RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 . 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: - 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS XXVIII IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW . 2. THAT THE EX PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE LD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 38(4), NEW DELHI IS ALSO ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 3. THAT LD CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO ERR ED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS FILED. 4. THE NO NOTICE WHATSOEVER AS ALLEGED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. 5. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD INCOME AND TAX OFFICER AND LD CIT(APPEALS) ARE ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. 7. THAT THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE IT ACT AND DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY THE LD CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 8. THAT LD ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.23,70,750/ - IN THE DECLARED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS AND CREATING A HUGE DEMAND OF RS.10,43,460/ - . APPELLANT BY : KARTAR SINGH , ADV. RESPONDENT BY : VIVEK NANGIA, SR. DR PAGE 2 OF 3 3. FOR THE INSTANT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2009 BY DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.2,99,570/ - . 4. AS THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO REMAINED UNCOMPLIED, HE FRAMED ORDER DATED 29 TH DECEMBER 2011 U/S 144 OF THE I NCOME T AX ACT , 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT ) AT AN INCOME OF RS.23,70,750/ - BEING UN - EX PLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH CORPORATION BANK. 5. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO NEVER REACHED THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS SERVED. AND AS SUC H THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVIDED ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY BY THE AO. ON MERITS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE CREDIT IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE - SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE CASH DEPOSIT WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO PARKING CHARGES RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS IN CASH. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TWO PARKING CONTRACTS FROM DDA. AND AS SUCH THE DEPOSIT WERE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED. THE LD CIT(A) HOWEVER UPHELD THE ADDITIONS SUMMARILY HOLDING AS UNDER: - 2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL AND THE SUBMISSIO NS FILED BEFORE THE TIME OF APPEAL HEARING. FIRST OF ALL THE AR HAS NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER FOR THE NON COMPLIANCE TO THE UMPTEEN NUMBER OF NOTICES ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT. IT IS A CLEAR CUT CASE OF AVOIDANCE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RESULT ING IN NON EXPLANATION OF THE AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS THE APPELLANT FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, I HAVE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. APPEAL ON ALL THE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND WE CONSIDER IT JUST AND PROPER THAT THE MATTER NEEDS EXAMINATION IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION AND EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE THUS SET - PAGE 3 OF 3 ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DE - NOVO EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUES. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT ADEQUA TE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER . 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPE AL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 1 . 10 .2014. - S D / - - S D / - ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 3 1 / 10 / 2014 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI