Neeru Bansal, Noida V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5964/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7065 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 08-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: V K TULSIAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Wrong claim
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-5964/DEL/2015 NEERU BANSAL VS ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-5964/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) NEERU BANSAL, FLAT NO.A202, PLOT NO.58/2A, STELLAR PARK APARTMENT, SECTOR-62, NOIDA-201301. PAN-AGGPB9484P ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-47(2), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SH.V.K.TULSIAN, ADV. REVENUE BY SH. F.R.MEENA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 08 . 11 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05 . 0 1.201 7 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2015 OF CIT(A)-21, NEW DELHI PERT AINING TO 201112 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. WHETHER THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED BY UPHOLDI NG THE FINDING OF A.O. IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 06.02.2014 PASSED U/S 143(3 ) ON THE ADDITION OF RS.21,01,862/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATI NG THE SUBMISSION AS WELL AS SUPPORTED BY THE PAPER BOOK. 2. WHETHER THE LD.CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED BY UPHOLDI NG THE FINDING OF A.O. IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 06.02.2014 PASSED U/S 143(3) ON THE ADDITION OF RS.1,23,970/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN SALARY AS PER 26AS. 3. WHETHER THE LD.CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED BY NOT CO NSIDERING OR SAY ANYTHING TOWARDS APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A(L)(A)/(D) AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PLACED . THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, ALTER OR TO RA ISE ANY OTHER GROUND AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS.15,95,230/- WHICH WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(2)/142(1), SH. DESHRATAN MARWAH AND SH. RAMESH SHARMA, ADVOCATE APPEARED BUT ONLY SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS AND DID NOT MAKE ANY COMPLIANCES. AS A RESULT OF THIS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EFFECTIVE RE PRESENTATION, THE ASSESSMENT WAS CONCLUDED BY WAY OF ADDITIONS UNDER CHALLENGE AT AN INCOME OF RS.38,50,756/-. THE ISSUE TRAVELLED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH RESULTE D IN PARTIAL RELIEF, HOWEVER THE MAJOR ADDITIONS STOOD CONFIRMED. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. THE LD.AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE CIT(A), FRESH PAGE 2 OF 3 I.T.A .NO.-5964/DEL/2015 NEERU BANSAL VS ITO EVIDENCES WERE SOUGHT TO BE FILED. ADMISSION OF TH E SAME WAS SUPPORTED ON THE GROUNDS OF THE FOLLOWING PRAYER:- (I) FRESH EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WE COULD NOT BE PRODUCE BEFORE LD.AO. BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODU CE ALL THE INFORMATION WHICH SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE LD.A.O . BECAUSE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE WAS UNDER M ENTAL PRESSURE BY THE REASON THAT HIS BROTHER NIPUL BANSA L WAS UNDER THE CUSTODY ON ALLEGATION OF WITHDRAWAL OF A FORGED CHE QUE. (EMPHASIS PROVIDED) 2.1. THE SAID SUBMISSION IS FOUND RECORDED AT PAG E 18 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING AN UNMARRIED LADY WAS DEPENDENT UPON HER BROTHER WHO HIMSELF WAS IN CUSTODY ON SOME FALSE CLAIM/CASE OF A FORGED CHEQUE ETC. THUS THE FACTS COULD NOT BE PROPERLY PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE. THE LD. AR IN THE SAID BACKGROUND SUBMITTED THAT THE EVIDENCE RELIED UPON HAS NOT BEE N TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE CIT(A) BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HIS LIMITED PRAYER THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER BE SET ASIDE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO PLACE THE RELEVANT FACTS AND EVIDENCES BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY MAY BE PROVIDED. THE SAID PRAYER WAS NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECTED TO BY THE LD. SR.DR. CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.AR THAT T HE ASSESSEE AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME WAS AN UNMARRIED LADY FULLY DEPENDENT UPON HER BROTHER AND LIVING ALONGWITH HER OLD MOTHER AND THUS WAS UNABLE TO ENGAGE A COUNSEL ON H ER BEHALF TO EXPLAIN AND SUPPORT THE CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN. THE BROTHER WHO WOULD HAV E BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY WAS HIMSELF IN CUSTODY IN A FALSE C ASE. ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTUAL MATRIX AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES B EFORE THE BENCH, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUES ARE RESTORED BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO ADMIT THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE AND AFTER OBTAINING A REMAND REPORT ETC FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASS A SPEAKING ORDE R IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFFORDED A REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THE REMAND REPORT SHALL BE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. WHILE SO DOING, IT IS HOPED THAT THE OPPORTUNITY SO PROVIDED IN GOOD FAITH IS NOT ABUSED BY THE ASSESSEE AS IN THE EVENTUALITY, PAGE 3 OF 3 I.T.A .NO.-5964/DEL/2015 NEERU BANSAL VS ITO FULL AND PROPER COMPLIANCES ARE NOT MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE SAID AUTHORITY IT IS MADE CLEAR WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 TH OF JANUARY, 2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI