BHOOP SINGH, NOIDA V. ITO, WARD- 1(2), NOIDA

ITA 5374/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3132 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA NEB
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 5374 /DEL/2017 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2008 - 09 BHOOP SINGH, S/O HARKESH, VILL - SALA RPUR, SECTOR - 101, NOIDA VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2 ) , NOIDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. B WNPS6906D ASSESSEE BY : SH. RAGHURAJ SINGH, ADV. REVENUE BY : MS. ASHIMA NEB , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 12 .12 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 .12 .201 7 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2016 OF LD. CIT(A) - I, NOIDA . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN EIGHT GROUNDS OF APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED. 3 . FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM CIT(CIB), KANPUR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS.10,00,000 / - IN CASH IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH BANK OF INDIA, BHANGEL, NOIDA, HAD TAKEN THE ACTION U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). THE AO ITA NO . 5374 /DEL /201 7 BHOOP SINGH 2 MENTIONED THAT WHENEVER THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. HE, THEREFORE, BY CONSIDERING THE NON - COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/ - . 4 . BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE CA SE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 16.06.2016 BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE SIDE. 5 . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS N OT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION BY PASSING THE EX - PARTE ORDER. 6 . IN HER RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7 . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABL E ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDER EX - PARTE. THE LD. CIT(A) ALTHOUGH MENTIONED THAT THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 16.06.2016 BUT NOWHERE HE HAS POINTED OUT T HAT NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM . I, THEREFORE, BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMAND THE ISSUE BACK TO ITA NO . 5374 /DEL /201 7 BHOOP SINGH 3 THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . (O RD E R PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13 /12 /2017 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DAT ED: 13 /12 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR