Sh. Subhash Rastogi, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5623/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4070 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5623/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SUBHASH RASTOGI, C/O V.K. BANKA & CO. (CA), 390, GAGAN VIHAR, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAEPR9312E VS. ITO, WARD -14(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJ KUMAR GUPTA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.08.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 16.7.2014 IN RELATION TO TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ITA NO.5623/DEL/2014 2 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,67,000/-, BEING THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE AO FOUND THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE DEPOSITED CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON DIFFERENT DATES TOTALING TO RS.7,67,000/-. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY C ONVINCING EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO MADE ADDITION FOR THI S SUM, WHICH ADDITION CAME TO BE UPHELD IN THE FIRST APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST SUCH ADDITION. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY AT THE ASSESSMENT STAG E INASMUCH AS DESPITE HIS ILLNESS, DULY SUBSTANTIATED BY MEDICAL CERTIFICATE, THE AO REJECTED HIS PRAYER FOR ADJOURNMENT. I FIND THAT T HE RELEVANT DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE IN PARA 2 ON PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT SUMMONS U/S 131 WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS PERSONAL DEPOSITION ON 18.2.2013 BUT THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT APPEAR ITA NO.5623/DEL/2014 3 BECAUSE OF THE VIRAL FEVER AND WAS ADVISED REST BY THE DOCTOR FOR 15 DAYS. MEDICAL CERTIFICATE WAS ALSO ENCLOSED AND REQUEST W AS MADE FOR GRANTING ADJOURNMENT. THE AO DID NOT GRANT ANY ADJOURNMENT AND MADE THE ADDITION. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OBTAINING IN THIS CASE, I AM OF THE C ONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET ADEQUATELY IF THE IM PUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT THE AO TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH AS PER LAW, AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.08.20 16. SD/- [R.S. SYAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 11 TH AUGUST, 2016. DK ITA NO.5623/DEL/2014 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.