Raaj Dhawan, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5449/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7386 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 21-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAMEER SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: R S AHUJA
• Keywords: Salary income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 5449 / DEL/ 201 2 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. N O. 5449 /DEL/2012 A.Y . 200 9 - 10 RAAJ DHAWAN, E - 4, 2 ND FLOOR, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI 110024 (PAN: AAGD4339K) VS . ITO, WARD 15(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. R.S. AHUJA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SHAMEER SHARMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 1 - 10 - 2014 DATE OF ORDER : 29 - 10 - 2014 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : J M TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSES S EE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) - X XI , NEW DELHI DATED 26 . 8 .201 2 P ERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS UNDER: - (I) . THAT O N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. ITO & CIT(A) ERRED IN : (A) MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 17,11,000/ - AS INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. ITA NO. 5449 / DEL/ 201 2 2 (B) MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,80,000/ - AS SALARY INCOME. WITHOUT PREJUDICE EVEN IF THE FINDINGS ARE TO BE UPHELD THEN THE MAXIMUM ADDITION THAT CAN BE MADE IS RS. 204600 (280000 - 75400). (C) NOT APPRECIATING THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ADM ITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY HIM. (D) NOT APPRECIATING THAT A COUPLE MARRIED FOR YEARS AND OPERATING A JOINT ACCOUNT CAN HAVE ENTRIES WHICH PERTAIN TO THEM INDIVIDUALLY AND ONE OF THEM MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GIVE COMPLETE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATU RE AND SOURCES THEREOF, MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE RECEIPT OR PAYMENT DOES NOT RELATE TO HIM. (E) REJECTING THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE WITHOUT GIVING ANY COGENT REASONS. (II) THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND THE GROUNDS O F APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 3 . BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,19,335/ - ON 31.3.2010. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143( 3 ) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30.12.2011 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 22,31,147/ - AFTER MAKING THE ADDITIONS. 4 . AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2011 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26 . 8 .2012 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 5449 / DEL/ 201 2 3 5 . AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26 . 8 .2012 OF THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6 . LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING P AGES 1 TO 39 HAVING THE RECORDS WITH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS , ESPECIALLY THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE LD. COUN S EL OF THE ASSESSEE AND ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 8 . LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE DURING THE HEARING BEFORE US HAD STATED THAT A S SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUB S TANT I ATE ITS CLAIM AND SIMILARLY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE S INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 9. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9. 1 WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE WHILE FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS RAISED THE ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT APPRECIATING THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ADMITTING THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED HIM. HE ALSO SUBMITTED IN THE SAME GROUNDS THAT REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT APPRECIATED THAT A COUPLE MARRIED FOR YEARS AND OPERATING A JOINT ACCOUNT CAN HAVE ENTRIES WHICH PERTAIN TO THEM INDIVIDUALLY AND ONE OF THEM MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GIVE COMPLETE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCES THEREOF, MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE RECEIPT OR PAYMENT DOES NOT RELATE TO HIM. HE ALSO STATED THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE REJECTED THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESEE AND HIS WIFE WITHOUT GI VING ANY COGENT REASONS. ITA NO. 5449 / DEL/ 201 2 4 9.2 IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS, WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AS AFORESAID. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN THE INTER E ST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE ISSUE S REQUIRE TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE S INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE SAME AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, IF ANY, SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 1 0 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN C OURT ON 29/ 10 /20 1 4 . SD/ - SD/ - [ J.S. REDDY ] [ H.S. SIDHU ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 29 / 10 /201 4 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 ITA NO. 5449 / DEL/ 201 2 5