Tejpal Singh, Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 34(4), Delhi

ITA 5125/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5647 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.:- 5125/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 O R D E R THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.1.2018 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) 12, NEW DELHI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINLY AGGRIEVED BY EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS. 27,44,000/- AS AGAINST THE RETURN INCOME OF RS. 2,07,146/-. 2. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT NOT ONLY BEFORE THE AO BUT ALSO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. FIRST OF ALL, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND POINTED OUT THAT ONLY EFFECTIVE NOTICE GIVEN BY TEJPAL SINGH, 861, S.P. MUKHERJI MARG, BEHIND NOVELTY CINEMA, NEW DELHI-110 052 VS. ITO, WARD -34(4) DELHI PAN AATPS7743P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI ANOOP SHARMA , ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.L. ANURAGI SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 30/0 1 /201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31 /01 /201 9 2 THE AO DATED 15.3.2016 TO WHICH ASSESSEE ATTENDED ON 18.3.2016 ALONGWITH THE DETAILS AND THEREAFTER FURTHER DETAILS WERE ASKED BY THE AO VIDE ORDER SHEET DATED 21.3.2016. HOWEVER, WITHIN SEVEN DAYS HE HAS PASSED THE ORDER ON 29.3.2016. THE AO HAS MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD OR GIVING FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE ISSUES AND FILING OF DETAILS. EVEN LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED EX PARTE ORDER DESPITE LETTER OF ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT(A) WHICH WAS SOUGHT ON THE GROUND THAT COUNSEL WAS ILL AND WAS UNABLE TO ARGUE THE CASE. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, HE SUBMITTED THAT MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH. 2. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR MAKING AFRESH ASSESSMENT. 3. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, WE FIND THAT THE LD. AO AT PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HIMSELF HAS SAID THAT EARLIER YEAR NOTICES WERE UNSERVED AND ONE NOTICE DATED 15.3.2016 WAS SERVED TO ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO WHICH CERTAIN DETAILS WERE FILED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, AO ASKED FOR FURTHER DETAILS, HOWEVER, THE TIME ALLOWED WAS VERY SHORT AND ACCORDINGLY, HE HAS MADE HUGE ADDITION VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.3.2016. AGAIN FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE FIRST NOTICE SENT COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND ON ANOTHER TWO OCCASIONS ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THEREAFTER THE LD. CIT (A) HAD DECIDED THE APPEAL EX PARTE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THUS, IT IS QUITE PALPABLE THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT THIS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ENTIRE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO RE-DECIDE THE ISSUES AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER 3 GIVING DUE AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS CASE. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2019. SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31 /01/2019 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI