Ashish Singhal, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6025/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2831 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM ITA NO.6025/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ASHISH SINGHAL, C/O ADVOCATE LALIT KUMAR SHARMA, F-223A, GROUND FLOOR, MANGAL BAZAR, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI . PAN: BJYPS8042N VS. ITO, WARD-20(4), NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI LALIT KUMAR SHARMA, ADVOCATE DEPTT. BY : SHRI K.K. JAISWAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 06.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.01.2016 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 26.3.2012 IN RELATION TO THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09. ITA NO.6025/DEL/2012 2 2. THIS APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 186 DAYS. A PETIT ION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY, BEING ILLNESS OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE WHO WAS SUFFERING FROM EPILEPSY WHICH DERAILED THE ASSESSEE S BUSINESS ACTIVITIES DUE TO HIS INVOLVEMENT IN PERSONAL MATTE RS. WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FO R THE BELATED FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AS SUCH, THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED FOR HEARING. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.74,79,136. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMMIS SION AGENT WHO DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.74,79,136/- IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH PNB KHARI BAOLI BRANCH. THE AO VIDE HI S LETTER DATED 16.12.2010 REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH E XPLANATION ABOUT THIS BANK DEPOSIT ON 21.12.2010 BY 4 PM. SINC E THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR ON THAT DATE, THE AO PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE SAME DATE ON 21.12.2010, MAKING AN ADD ITION OF ITA NO.6025/DEL/2012 3 RS.74.79 LAC. THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO UPHELD THE ADDITION BY MEANS OF AN E X PARTE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE SUSTEN ANCE OF ADDITION. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO GAVE INADEQUATE TIME TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE INFORMATION OR EXPLANATIONS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO WI THIN A TIME GAP OF FIVE DAYS ONLY FROM THE DATE OF NOTICE OF TH E AO, AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ALSO PASSED ON THE SAME DA Y, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SUFFERING DUE TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF S. VELU PALANDAR VS. DY CTO (1972) 83 ITR 683 (MAD) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED EX PARTE ON DATE FIXED FOR HE ARING IS NOT VALID. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ENDS OF JUST ICE WOULD MEET ADEQUATELY IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE ITA NO.6025/DEL/2012 4 MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO. WE ORDER ACC ORDINGLY AND DIRECT THE AO TO DECIDE THE DISPUTED ISSUE AFRESH A S PER LAW, AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HE ARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.01.2016. SD/- SD/- [SUCHITRA KAMBLE] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 07 TH JANUARY, 2016. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.