Jagat Singh, Gurgaon V. ITO, Ward-2(1), Gurgaon

ITA 5669/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2840 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K JIWANI
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5669/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SHRI JAGAT SINGH, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICE, 104, HAMLIN APARTMENTS, WARD 2(1), SECTOR-43, NEAR GOLD COURSE ROAD, GURGAON GURGAON-122001 (PAN: AXPS15966D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. K. SAMPATH, ADV. & SH. RAJKU MAR, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. V.K. JIWANI, SR. DR. ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 27.6.2017 OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)-I, GURGAON ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL; 2. DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING DUE, REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING IN CONTRAVENTION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE; 3. NOT DECIDING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ON MERITS: I) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE CASH DEPOSIT AMOUNTING TO RS. 10 LACS BEING GENUINE ADVANCE RECEIVED FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES; 2 II) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE CASH DEPOSIT AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,75,000/- BEING GENUINE PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. ALL THE ABOVE ACTIONS BEING MOST ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS, UNLAWFUL AND UNJUST MUST BE QUASHED WITH DIRECTIONS FOR RELIEF. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEAT ED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL O N ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING DUE, R EASONABLE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING IN CONTRAVENTION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL ON ME RIT OF THE CASE, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. HE REQUESTED THAT ONE MORE CHANCE MAY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSES SEE TO EXPLAIN THE VALID REASONS OF DELAY IN FILING THE A PPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, REQUESTED TO REMIT BACK THE IS SUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE REQ UEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. I FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE 3 APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND DID NOT DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERIT OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ONE MORE CHANCE NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAI N THE VALID REASONS OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A). HENCE, I SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FIL E OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO RECONSIDER THE CONTENT ION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND IF T HE CONTENTIONS ARE SATISFACTORY, THEN CONDONE THE DELAY AND DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21-03-2018. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21-03-2018 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.