Gurjeet Singh, U.S. Nagar V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4723/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7115 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIMA BA RANWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GURJEET SINGH SELF
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-472 3/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2008-09) GURJEET SINGH, SITARGANJ, NANAKMATA, DISTT.- UDHAM SINGH NAGAR, UTTARANCHAL. PAN-ALRPS0228G (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-20(3), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. GURJEET SINGH (SELF) RESPONDENT BY MS. ANIMA BAR A NWAL, SR.DR ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2015 OF CIT(A)-12, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2008-09 ASSESSMENT YEAR. ALTHOUGH VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE APPEARING IN PERSON ONLY ADDR ESSED GROUND NO. 2. THE SAME READS AS UNDER:- 2. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT WITHOUT GRANTING ANY VALID AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND SO AS SUCH EVEN O THERWISE ORDER SO MADE IS ENTIRELY VITIATED. 2. ADDRESSING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 144 BY THE AO WH ICH WAS ASSAILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUB MITTED THAT HE IS RESIDING IN UTTARAKHAND AND THOUGH HAD ENGAGED A COUNSEL DESPIT E THAT HE REMAINED DATE OF HEARING 0 3 .08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 3 .09.2016 I.T.A .NO.-4723/DEL/2015 PAGE 2 OF 3 UNREPRESENTED AND DEPRIVED OF OPPORTUNITY TO PLACE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE ADDITIONS ASSAILED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BY THE TIME THE NOTICE WAS RECEIVED THE TIME AVAILABLE TO CONTACT THE COUNSEL WAS NOT THERE. THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN DELHI AS OPPOSED IN UTTARAKHAND IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. SR. DR WAS A RESULT OF PAN APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE IN DELHI AND IF HE WANTS TO BE ASSE SSED AT IN UTTARAKHAND THEN IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CARRY OUT THE A NECESSARY STEPS. RE FERENCE WAS MADE TO PARA 8.5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AS FAR AS THE LACK OF PROPER REPRES ENTATION BEFORE THE CIT(A) IS CONCERNED THE LD.SR.DR DID NOT OPPOSE THE REQUEST OF LACK OF OPPORTUNITY IN THE FACE OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED. 3. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THAT THE ASSE SSEE RETURNED AN INCOME OF RS.1,13,020/-. THE SAID RETURN WAS SUBJECTED TO SCR UTINY. THE ASSESSEES SOURCE OF INCOME WAS SHOWN AS RS.60,000/- UNDER THE HEAD BUSI NESS AND PROFESSION FROM M/S KHINDA TRACTORS ON ACCOUNT OF REMUNERATION INTEREST AND RS.1,25,000/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. CONSIDERING THE DEPOSIT S WHICH WERE PICKED UP BY THE AIR DETAILS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE C ASH DEPOSITS OF RS.22,21,100/-. CONSIDERING THAT DESPITE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE, NO ONE WAS PRESENT, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY AN ORDER U/S 144. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY A COUNSEL SH. S.K.ANAND , CA WHO INITIALLY SOUGHT TIME ON HEALTH REASONS ETC. THEREAFTER HE DID NOT APPEAR. VARIOUS NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH REMAINED UNCOMPLIED WITH. IN THE SA ID BACKGROUND, CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH AND BEIN G OF THE VIEW THAT AN ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF THE FAULT OF THE CO UNSEL, IT IS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) I.T.A .NO.-4723/DEL/2015 PAGE 3 OF 3 DIRECTING THE SAID AUTHORITY TO GIVE A REASONABLE T IME TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR OR CAUSE AN APPEARANCE IN RESPONSE TO THE DATE OF HEAR ING BEING FIXED. IT IS HOPED THAT THE OPPORTUNITY SO PROVIDED IS NOT ABUSED BY THE ASSESS EE AS FAILING WHICH THE CIT(A) WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI