Sudesh Devi, Ghaziabad V. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 5658/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2935 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 40A(3); 147

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 5658/DEL/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: -SMC-2 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 5658/DEL/20 19 (A.Y 2010-11) (THROUGH VIDEO CON FERENCING) SUDESH DEVI C/O. SAUBHAGYA AGARWAL, C- 12/114, FF, DB PLAZA, RDC RAJ NAGAR, GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH AFBPD1857Q (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-2(3) GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 31/03/2019 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-GHAZIABAD FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THA T HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THAT THE APPELLANT DENIES HER LIABILITY TO BE RE-ASSESSE D AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS.11,61,148/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.2,8 7,748/- AND ACCORDINGLY DENIES HER LIABILITY TO PAY TAX, INTEREST DEMANDED THEREON. 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT QUASHING THE I MPUGNED REASSESSMENT APPELLANT BY SH. SAUBHAGYA AGARWAL, ADV RESPONDENT BY SH. FARHAN KHAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 23.02.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23.02.2021 2 ITA NO. 5658/DEL/2019 ORDER PASSED BY LD. AO U/ S 147/143(3) AND THAT TOO WITHOUT COMPLYING THE VARIOUS MANDATORY CONDITION OF SECTION 147 TO 151 O F INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, AC TION OF LD. AO IN MAKING AGGREGATE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,73,400/- ON A CCOUNT OF CASH PAYMENT MADE TO M/S UFLEX LTD. U/S 40A(3) IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, TH E IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER AND DISALLOWANCE MADE THEREIN AR E NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IS BEYOND JU RISDICTION AND VOID AB INITIO. 5. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B, 234C AND 234D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 3. E-RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 W AS FILED ON 6/10/2010 BY THE ASSESSEE DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 2,87,748/-. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN WEST PLASTIC SCRAP AND A LSO DERIVES INCOME FROM BANK INTEREST AND HOUSE PROPERTY. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM CCIT (CENTRAL) NEW DELHI, THE ASSESSEE MADE CASH PU RCHASES AGGREGATING TO RS. 71,88,304/- FROM TWO ENTITIES DURING THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2009-10. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME AND DISALLOWED THE CASH PAYMENTS AGGREGATING T O RS. 8,73,400/- AGAINST THE PURCHASES AS PER SECTION 40A(30) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSE SSEE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE. 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE RELATED TO VALID REASONS NOT RECORDED IN RESPECT OF ORDER U/S 147/14 3(3) WAS NOT AT ALL DISCUSSED OR DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) IN HER APPELLATE ORDER. THESE GROUNDS WERE 3 ITA NO. 5658/DEL/2019 TAKEN AS GROUND NO. 2(A), 2(B), 2(C), 2(D) AND 2(E) . THEREFORE, THE LD. AR REQUESTED THAT THE SAID GROUNDS MAY BE DECIDED FIRS T BY THE CIT(A). HENCE, THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT( A). 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) A ND ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE CIT(A) H AS NOT DECIDED THE JURISDICTIONAL /LEGAL ISSUES AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE LD. AR DURING THE HEARING BEFORE US, HENCE IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO REMAND BACK THE MAT TER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE SAME. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESS EE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN PRESENCE OF B OTH THE PARTIES ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021 SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 23 /02/2021 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT 4 ITA NO. 5658/DEL/2019 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI