Trilok Singh Bhatia, Dehradun V. ITO, Dehradun

ITA 5622/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7252 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 27-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJIV RANKA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5622/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 TRILOK SINGH BHATIA, 100A, NESHVILLA ROAD, DEHRADUN. PAN: ACFPB7710H VS. ITO, WARD-1(3), SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJAY MALIK, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAJIV RANKA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 27.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.01.2016 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 13.10.2011 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN `INDIVIDUAL WHO EARNED SALAR Y AND HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME. ADDITION OF RS.6,42,000 WAS MADE B Y THE AO U/S 69A ITA NO.5622/DEL/2011 2 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK, WHICH CAME TO BE AFFIRMED IN THE FIRST APPEAL BY WAY OF AN EX PARTE ORDER. 3. GROUND NO. 3 TAKEN IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE NON-GRANTING OF ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. SHORN OF UNNECESSARY DETAILS, IT IS NOTICED T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) ISSUED NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE ASSESSEE ON FOUR OCCASIONS. ON LAST TWO OCCASIONS, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT CITING T HE REASONS JUSTIFYING THE SAME, EITHER OF HIS ENGAGEMENT ELSEWHERE OR HIS NON-AVAILABILITY DUE TO OFFICIAL TOUR. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APP EAL BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT VIGILANT ABOUT THE PROGRESS OF HIS APPEAL. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE REASONS WHICH LED TO THE NON-APPEA RANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WITH WHICH WE ARE SATISFIED. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE AD DITION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD M EET ADEQUATELY IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTO RED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AN D DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) ITA NO.5622/DEL/2011 3 TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS, AS PER LAW, AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.01.201 6. SD/- SD/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 27 TH JANUARY, 2016. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.