Lajjawati, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-44(4), New Delhi

ITA 6004/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2933 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K JIWANI
• Assessee Lawyers: BALWANT SINGH; RISHU GOYAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Peak credit

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6004/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 LAJJAWATI, VS. ITO, WARD-44(4), RZ-20E/2, NEW DELHI RAJ NAGAR, PART-I, PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI 110 077 (PAN: ABBPL3966C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. BALWANT SINGH, ADV. & SH. RISHU GOYAL, CA REVENUE BY : SH. V.K. JIWANI, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 26.06.2017 OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-15, NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2014-15. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT APPELLANT DENIES ITS LIABILITY TO BE ASSES SED, AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 11,48,070/- ACCORDINGLY DENIES ITS LIABILITY TO PAY TAX AND INTEREST DEMANDED THEREON. 2. THAT LD. AO/CIT(A), HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS O F THE CASE, BY TREATING PEAK CREDIT BALANCE AS INCOME. 3. THE LD. AO/CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW, AS ORDER HAV E BEEN PASSED WITHOUT AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE CASE AND THEREFORE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAVE BEEN IGNORED. 4. THE LD. AO HAD IGNORED THE FACTS, SUBMISSIONS, DOCUMENTS INCLUDING CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON RECORDS AND SUMMARILY ASSUME WHAT IS CONTRARY TO THE RECORD 2 WITHOUT CONFRONTING ANY MATERIAL / DOCUMENT TO THE APPELLANT. 5. THE LD. AO/CIT(A), ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION, ASSUMPTION AND SURMISES PROCEEDED ARBITRARILY AND HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION HEARINGS AND BASIC PROFILE OF APPELLANT, THAT APPELLANT BELONG TO VILLAGERS FAMILY, WHO WAS KEEPING DAIRY ANIMALS FO R THEIR LIVELIHOOD, AND IN NEED THEY SOLD ANIMALS, AN D RECEIVED THE CASH, THE MAIN REASON FOR PEAK BALANCE. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, SUBSTITUTE, AND / OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF NECESSARY, ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 7. THE AO ERRED IN LAW WHILE NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS. 1,00,000/- CLAIMED U/S. 80C. 3. 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 BREVITY. 4. DURING THE HEARING, LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, HA S NOT PRESSED THE GROUND NO. 7, HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS S UCH. HE FURTHER STATED THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE ORDER S WITHOUT AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE CAS E AND THEREFORE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAVE BEEN IGNORED. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS, DOCUMENTS INCLUDING CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON RECORDS AND DRAW MY ATTENTION TOWARD S A LETTER DATED 04.08.2016 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY T HE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE/CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT ALONGWITH ENCLOSURES, PLACED IN PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 1 TO 15. HE HAS FURTHER STAT ED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES AND CAN PRODUCE BEF ORE THE AO, IF THIS BENCH GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PRODUCING ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. I FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. CO UNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AO HAS NOT AFFORDED REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY TO EXPLAIN THE CASE AND THEREFORE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAVE BEEN IGNORED. HOWEVER, THE SUBMISSIONS, DOCUMENTS INCLUDING CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND ESPECIALLY A LETTER DATED 04.08.2016 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE/CHARTERED ACCOU NTANT ALONGWITH ENCLOSURES, FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUES I N DISPUTE ARE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE AFRESH UN DER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE A SSESSEE AND CONSIDERED ALL THE DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FILE ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS / EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE AND FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS. SIN CE THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, THERE IS NO NEED TO SEND THE NOTICE TO THE PARTIES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 13-03-2018. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 13-03-2018 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. 4