Ramesh Chaner Garg (HUF), New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5190/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 519020114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDHIRANJAN SENAPATI
• Assessee Lawyers: S K GOYAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5 190 /DEL/201 4 A.Y. : 200 5 - 0 6 RAMESH CHANDER GARG HUF , VS. ITO, WARD 25( 3 ) 4/7, EAST PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI (PAN : AAGHR2553F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 5 191 /DEL/2014 A.Y. : 200 5 - 0 6 KAVITA GUPTA, VS. ITO, WARD 25(3) 4/7, EAST PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI (PAN : AAPGL1429K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. S.K. GOYAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SUDHIRANJAN SENAPATI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 6 - 8 - 2015 DATE OF ORDER : 6 - 8 - 2015 O R D E R TH ESE APPEAL S FILED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEE S ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S OF THE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - X XIV , DELHI BOTH DATED 16 . 7 .201 4 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5 - 0 6 . SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL, HENCE, I AM DISPOSING OF THESE APPEALS BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIE NCE. 2 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 5190/DEL/2014 READ AS UNDER: - 1. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED REFUND OF RS. 2,50,000 / - FROM SHRI NIRAJ JAIN / POOJA EXPO INC. OUT OF PAYMENT OF RS. 3,00,000 / - PAID TO HIM EARLIER AS ADVANCE AGAINST PROPERTY LEAVING A BALANCE OF RS. 50,000 / - . THE AO TREATED THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 2,50,000 / - RECEIVED FROM MANOJ JAIN INSTEAD OF NIRAJ JAIN / POOJA EXPO INC. AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE NEVER RECEIV ED ANY AMOUNT FROM MANOJ JAIN BUT RECEIVED FROM NIRAJ JAIN. FROM ORDER OF THE ITO, IT LOOKS THAT HE WAS SATISFIED WITH THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM NIRAJ JAIN ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE CIT APPEAL PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF WITHOUT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE ORDER WAS DISPATCHED AFTER 40 DAYS. THERE WAS NO HARM IN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE COURTS ALSO DO NOT APPRECIATE WRITING OF ORDERS ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF. IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ORDER HAS BEEN MADE WITH THE BIASED MIND. THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED WITHOUT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D ARE TOTALLY WRONG AND BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL I N CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 12,500/ - AS COMMISSION PAID WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE IS WRONG AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 3. THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER AND ASSESSEE PRAYS PERMISSION TO ADD, DELETE OR AMEND ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE ASSURES UNSTINTED CO - OPERATION IN ALL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE YOUR GOOD SELF. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 5191/DEL/2014 READ AS UNDER: - 1. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED REFUND OF RS. 2,50,000 / - FROM SHRI NIR AJ JAIN / POOJA EXPO INC. OUT OF PAYMENT OF RS. 3,00,000 / - PAID TO HIM EARLIER AS ADVANCE AGAINST PROPERTY LEAVING A BALANCE OF RS. 50,000 / - . THE AO TREATED THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 2,50,000 / - RECEIVED FROM NIRAJ JAIN / POOJA EXPO INC. AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) PASSED AN EXPARTE ORDER ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF WITHOUT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE ORDER WAS DISPATCHED AFTER 40 DAYS. THERE WAS NO HA RM IN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE COURTS ALSO DO NOT APPRECIATE WRITING OF ORDERS ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF. IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN A HURRY WITH A BIASED MIND. THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED WITHOUT GIVEN SUFFICI ENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS TOTALLY WRONG AND BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 12,500/ - AS COMMISSION PAID WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE IS WRONG AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 3. THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER AND ASSESSEE PRAYS PERMISSION TO ADD, DELETE OR AMEND ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4 4. THAT THE ASSES SEE ASSURES UNSTINTED CO - OPERATION IN ALL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE YOUR GOOD SELF. 4 . THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED, HENCE, WE ARE NOT REPEATED THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 5 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF T HE ASSESEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,50,000/ - RECEIVED FROM NIRAJ JAIN / POOJA EXPO INC. AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESEE. ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT( A) PASSED EXPARTE ORDER ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF WITHOUT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. HE STATED THAT THE ORDER WAS DISPATCHED AFTER 40 DAYS. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO HARM IN GIV I N G OPPORTUNIT I E S TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL AND RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7 . I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PER USED THE R ECORDS AVAILABLE WITH ME, ESPECIALLY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) , I FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE ASSESSEE S SUBMISSION THAT THE AO TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,50,000/ - RECEIVED FROM NIRAJ JAIN / POOJA EXPO INC. AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESEE. ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. I ALS O FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED EXPARTE ORDER ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF WITHOUT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, I REMIT BACK THE ISS UE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, UNDER THE LAW, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE 5 RELEVANT EVIDENCES, AFTER GIVING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FURNISH ALL THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 / 8 /201 5 . S D / - [ H.S. SIDHU ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 6 / 8 /201 5 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES