Sh. Vijay Bhatia, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73948 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P CHANDRAKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: R K SINGAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM ITA NO.05/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 VIJAY BHATIA, A-5, PUSHPANJALI, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI. VS. ITO, WARD-26(2), NEW DELHI. PAN : AITPB5175A ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R. K. SINGAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : S HRI J.P. CHANDRAKAR, SR.DR ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 25.11.11 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. SOME OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE GE NERAL, WHILE SOME OTHERS ARE AGAINST THE INITIATION OF REASSESSM ENT AND THE LAST GROUND IS AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF `5 LAC ON MERITS. ITA NO.5/DEL/2012 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED F ROM INVESTIGATION WING ABOUT THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 24.3.09 WAS ISS UED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME LIMIT. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 20.11.09 REQUIRING THE A SSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS OF SUCH TRANSACTION BY 27.11.09. I N THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHING SUCH DETAILS BY THE GIVEN D ATE, THE AO PASSED ORDER U/S 144 MAKING ADDITION OF `5 LAC. TH E LD.CIT(A) APPROVED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF `5 LAC RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S WEAL IRON & STEEL CO. PVT. LTD., VIDE CHEQUE DATED 14.2.2002, WAS RETURNED IN THE IMMEDIATELY NE XT MONTH AND THERE WAS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE ALLEGATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING RECEIVED ANY ACCOMMODATION E TNRY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DID NOT PROVIDE A DEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT FORTH THE CASE EFFECTIVELY INASM UCH AS THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 20.11.09 WAS ITSELF SERVED ON 27.11.09 ITA NO.5/DEL/2012 3 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE NECESSARY DET AILS BY THE SAME DATE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WENT TO THE AO ON THE NEXT DAY, IT WAS INFORMED THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED. WE FI ND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS DATED 30.11.09 AND, ADMITTEDLY, THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE NECESSARY DETA ILS VIDE HIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 20.11.09. BY NO STANDARD, SUCH TIME GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE NECESSARY ELABORATE DETAILS, CAN BE CONSIDERED AS REASONABLE. WE, THER EFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMIT THE MATTER TO TH E FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THIS ISSUE AFRESH AS PER LAW, AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 5. OTHER GROUNDS ABOUT INITIATION OF REASSESSME NT WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. AR. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.01.201 5. SD/- SD/- [ A.T. VARKEY ] [ R.S. SYAL ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 08 TH JANUARY, 2015. ITA NO.5/DEL/2012 4 DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.