Sanjay Tyagi, Ghaziabad V. ITO ward-2(4), Ghaziabad

ITA 5396/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9800 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 250; 201; 143(2); 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 5396/DEL/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE P RESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.5396/DEL/201 9 (A.Y 2010-11) (THROUGH VIDEO CON FERENCING) SANJAY TYAGI 85, MOHANPURI, NIWARI MODINAGAR, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH PAN: AIHPT6300R (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-2(4), GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 28/02/2019 PASSED BY CIT(A)-GHAZIABAD, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 0-11. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE. 2. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED COMPLETELY ON WRONG FACTS AND WITHOUT THE CONSIDERING THE REASON FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, AS MENTIONED IN THE FORM 35 OF THE APPELLANT. 3) THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE SET-ASIDE. APPELLANT BY SH. SANTANU KARUNGO, ADV RESPONDENT BY MS. SHIVANI BANSAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 11.03.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.03.2021 2 ITA NO. 5396/DEL/2019 4) THAT THE PROVISION OF THE SECTION 143(2) WAS NOT C OMPLIED WITH AND NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S 143(2) OF 'THE ACT.' 5) THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FURTHER ILLEGAL AS PROVI SIONS OF THE SECTIONS 148 AND 151 WERE NOT FOLLOWED AS PROVIDED UNDER 'TH E ACT'. 6) THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FURTHER ILLEGAL DUE TO T HE MISREPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS IN THE ORDER. IF NECESSARY ADDITIONAL / REVISED / MODIFIED GROUND S OF APPEAL SHALL BE FILED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF INSTANT APPEAL. PRAYER IT IS, THEREFORE, MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT TH IS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO PASS ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AN D ALLOW ALL THE GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 6 OF THIS INSTANT APPEAL. SUCH OTHER FURTHER ORDER THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLANT AND AGAINST THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED RS. 25,10,100.00/- IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD. GHAZIABAD BRANC H GOVINDPURI, MODINAGAR DURING THE YEAR AND THE SAME WERE DEPOSIT ED OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURE LAND AT VILLAGE-NIWARI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 26,58,966/ - THEREBY MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS.25,10,000/- IN RESPECT OF CA SH DEPOSITS. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED EX-PARTE ORDER WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APP EAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS THE ASSESSEES FATHER WAS ILL DURING THAT PERIOD AND 3 ITA NO. 5396/DEL/2019 AFTERWARDS EXPIRED. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 25 DAYS I N FILING THE SAID APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE REL EVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN FORM NO. 35 BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAIN THE DELA Y IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A GENUINE A REASON IN FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY FOR 25 DAYS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HAS TOTALLY IGNORED THIS FACT AND PASSED EX-PARTE ORDER BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR HAS MADE OUT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS A GENUINE REA SON FOR DELAY, HENCE, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T(A) IS CONDONED. WE ARE REMANDING BACK THE ISSUES CONTESTED BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED ON MERIT. NEEDLESS TO SAY , THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 8. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN PRESENCE OF B OTH THE PARTIES ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021. SD/- SD/- (G. S. PANNU) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11/03/2021 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 4 ITA NO. 5396/DEL/2019 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI