DCIT, Central Circle , Ghaziabad V. Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida

ITA 4922/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8397 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-4922/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) SALINDER KAMBOJ, C/O GIRISH ANEJA, CA 796, SECTOR-13, U.E. KARNAL-132001 HARYANA PAN: AJYPK1011E (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD 4, KARNAL CIRCLE KARNAL (R ESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI GIRISH ANEJA, CA RESPONDENT BY SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 16.6.2016 OF THE LD. CIT(A), KARNAL RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - I) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCES LEADING TO AN ARBITRARY AND INVALID ADDITION OF RS . 13,54,000/- U/S. 69 OF THE ACT IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED, UNCALLED FOR AND BAD IN LAW AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING MINUSCULE RELIEF ONLY TO THE APPELLANT. II) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND OR DELETE ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. DURING THE HEARING, ASSESSEE, HAS STATED THAT AO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT) BY DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCE, RESULT ING AN ARBITRARY AND INVALID ADDITION OF RS. 13,54,000/- U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER STATED THAT AO HAS NOT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE AND DID NOT CONSI DER THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE REQUESTED THAT THE MATT ER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRE SH, UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4. LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION TO THE REQUES T OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE. I FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I AM SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH T HE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FILE ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS/EVIDEN CES, TO 3 SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE AND FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOUR NMENT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 01.01.2019 . SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 01/01/2019 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI 4