Naz & Co, Meerut V. Ito, Meerut

ITA 538/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 53820114 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KR CHOPRA
• Assessee Lawyers: PUSHKAR JAIN ADV
• Keywords: Business income; Condonation of delay
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC-2, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI J. S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.538 /DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 NAZ & CO., VS. ITO, WARD 2(1), NEAR IDGAH CHOPLA, MEERUT DELHI ROAD, MEERUT GIR / PAN:AAAFN7900N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PUSHKAR JAIN, ADV. CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ KR. CHOPRA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 16.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.07.2015 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), MEERUT, DATED 07.07.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THAT LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW & FACT BY CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 600000/- U/S 68 OF 1.T. ACT, 1961. HENCE ADDITION U/S 68 AMOUNTING TO RS. 600000/- IS UNCALLED FOR ARBITR ARY OUGHT TO BE DELETED. 2. THAT LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW & FACT B Y CONFIRMING BUSINESS INCOME OF RS. 100000/- , WHILE PROPER BOOK S OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED AND AUDITED. HENCE ADDITION OF RS. 10000 0/- IS ARBITRARY UNCALLED FOR VERY EXCESSIVE OUGHT TO BE DELETED. 3.THAT LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW & FACT BY ADDING AN INTEREST ON DEBT BALANCE OF PARTNER OF PARTNER OF R S. 19017/-. HENCE ADDITION OF RS. 19017/- IS UNCALLED FOR ARBITRARY O UGHT TO BE DELETED. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED 141 DAYS LATE. THE ASSESS EE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY DULY SUPPORTED BY AN AFFID AVIT. AFTER PERUSING THE ITA NO.538/DEL/2015 2 CONTENTS CAREFULLY, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM FILING THE APPEA L ON TIME. HENCE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED. 3. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THIS CASE PASSE D AN EX-PARTE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED AS TO WHY HE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRE SENT HIMSELF BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN MY VIEW, THE ASSESSE E WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HENCE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT, IN THE INTERES T OF JUSTICE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GI VING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSESSEE IS DI RECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JULY, 2015. SD./- (J. S. REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 20 TH JULY, 2015 SP COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ITA NO.538/DEL/2015 3 (ITAT, NEW DELHI). S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 16/7 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 17/7 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 20/7/15 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 20/7 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 20/7 SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER