Siri Ram Sethi (HUF), New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 36(5), New Delhi

ITA 5804/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9630 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: EKTA VISHNOI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5804/DEL/2019 (A.Y. 2011-12) M/S SIRI RAM SETHI HUF, B-4A, 11, RANA PRATAP BAGH, DELHI 110 007 (PAN: AAPHS9109H) VS. ITO, WARD 36(5), NEW DELHI ASSESSEE BY SH. VIVEK BANSAL, ADV. REVENUE BY MS. EKTA VISHNOI, SR. DR. ORDER ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGN ED ORDER DATED 22.5.2019 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-12, NEW DELHI RELEVA NT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT THE AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144/147 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT) BY PASSING AN EXPARTE ORDER 0 7.12.2018 WITHOUT GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTI ATE HIS CASE. HE FURTHER STATED NOTICES U/S. 142(1) WERE ISSUED ON 1 8.10.2018 AND 02.11.2018 AND A FINAL NOTICE ON 29.11.2018, BUT TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES DUE TO THE FACT THAT ASSESS EE IS HUF AND KARTA OF HUF HAD PASSED AWAY ON 19.4.2018 AND HENCE, ALL THE NOTICES WERE UNATTENDED AND AS A RESULT THEREOF THE EXPARTE ORDE R DATED 07.12.2018 U/S. 144/147 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED. HE FURTHER STAT ED THAT DURING THE 2 APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AL L THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS/ INFORMATION TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. H OWEVER, ON THE CONTRARY, LD. CIT(A) MENTIONED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDE R THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE BUSINES S OF M/S TRAVEL SOLUTIONS HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, H E REQUESTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SE T ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AND APPRECIATION OF ALL T HE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAIN NON-COOPE RATIVE BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, R EQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. I FIND THAT AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144/147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY PASSING AN EXPARTE ORDER 07.12.2018 WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. I FURTHER FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT AO HAD ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 142(1) ON 18.10.2018 AND 02.11.2018 AN D A FINAL NOTICE ON 29.11.2018, BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES DUE TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS HUF AND KARTA OF HUF HAD PASSED AWAY ON 19.4.2018 AND HENCE, ALL THE NOTICES WERE UNATTENDE D AND DUE TO THIS SITUATION, THE EXPARTE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018 U/S. 144/147 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED BY THE AO. I FURTHER NOTE THAT ASSESSEE S AR BEFORE ME HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE RELEVANT DOC UMENTS/ INFORMATION TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). BU T IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDE D ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE BUSINESS OF M/S TRAVEL SOLUTIONS HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE REQUIRE F RESH ADJUDICATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, I REMIT BACK THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE 3 TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIR ECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCES TO BE FILED BY THE A SSESSEE. ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO FILE ANY EVIDENCES FOR SUBSTANTIATING I TS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO AND FULLY COOPERATE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS B EFORE THE AO AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 26 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5. CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI AR, ITAT