SUDHIR KUMAR MITTAL, HISAR V. ACIT, CIRCLE, HISAR

ITA 5688/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3758 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMPOORANANAND
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 5688 /DEL/201 7 A.Y. : 201 2 - 13 SUDHIR KUMAR MITTAL S/O SH. RAJ KUMAR, RAILWAY ROAD, HISAR, HARYANA 125001 (PAN: ABZPM8367L) VS. ACIT, HISAR CIRCLE, HISAR AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-14, HISAR HARYANA-125001 (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. MUKESH KUMAR JAIN, CA REVENUE BY : SH. SAMPOORANANAND, SR. DR ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE IMP UGNED ORDER DATED 02.6.2017 OF THE LD. CIT(A), HISAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW, AGA INST FACTS OF THE CASE AND EQUITY. 2. THAT ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A)N ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 59,4806/- MADE BY AO BY RESTRICTING THE EXEMPTION ALLOWABLE U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT TO RS. 50 LACS. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE IN TOTALING. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY, RESCIND, SUPPLEMENT OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY ADJUDICATED UPON. 2 3. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE HAS STATED THAT LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED THE EXPART E ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN TOTALITY. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE NECESSARY DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCES FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM IN DISPUTE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED ANY ORDER ON THE SAME. HE A LSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ALL THE EVIDENCES FOR SUBSTANTIA TING HIS CLAIM, THEREFORE, SHE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUT E MAY BE SET ASIDE TO LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME A FRESH, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND GIVE AD EQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED RECORD S, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN TH E CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT LD. FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE S UBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. I FURTHER NOTE THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED A LL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM IN DISPUTE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CON SIDERED THE SAME. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 140 HAVING THE COPY OF DETAI LED ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS RAISED I N THE PRESENT APPEAL; CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF FORM 36 ALONGWITH GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL; CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF THE ORDER AP PEALED AGAINST I.E. ORDER OF CIT(A) HISAR DATED 2.6.2017 RECEIVED ON 8.7.2017 PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT; CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER 3 DATED 29.8.2014 PASSED BY ACIT, HISAR CIRCLE, HISAR PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT; CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND STATEMENT OF ACTS SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT(A), HISAR; CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 3/2008 DATED 12.3.2008 CONTAINING EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE PROV ISIONS OF FINANCE ACT, 2007; COPY OF VARIOUS CASE LAWS MENTIONED AT SERIA L NO. (A) TO (J). I ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CERTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE EVIDENCES/ DOCUMENTS WERE ON RECORD OF THE LD. CIT( A) & AO, BUT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME , WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ARE VERY ESSENTIAL TO BE CONSI DERED AND NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JU STICE, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCES AS DI SCUSSED ABOVE AND GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSE E FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO SUBMIT ALL THE DOCUMENTS / EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 05/02/2018. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 05/02/2018 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES