M/s. Mayfield Projects, Gurgaon V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6066/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91403 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 12-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SAROHA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM ITA NOS.6062 TO 6066/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-08 TO 20 09-10 MAYFIELD PROJECTS, MAYFIELD GARDENS, C-BLOCK, SECTOR-51, GURGAON. PAN: AAAAM3127D VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A.K. SAROHA, CIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.07.2015 ORDER PER BENCH: THIS BATCH OF FIVE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE INVOLVE S ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-1 0. SINCE A ITA NO.6062 TO 6066/DEL/2012 2 COMMON ISSUE HAS BEEN URGED BEFORE US, WHICH IS REL EVANT TO ALL THE INSTANT APPEALS, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE THEM OFF WITH THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. SHORN OF UNNECESSARY DETAILS, IT IS OBSERVED THA T A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 WAS CARRIED OUT AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE ON 26.2.2009. NOTICES U/S 153A WERE ISSUED REQUIRING IT TO FURNISH RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. THE RETURNS WERE FILED THOUGH BEYOND THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE AO . ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE COMPUTING INCOME AT MUCH HIGHER LEVEL THA N THAT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME. THE APPEALS WERE PREFERRED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). CERTAIN OPPORTUNITIES WERE ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO AVAIL THEM, WHICH LED TO THE EX PARTE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEALS. 3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR CERTAIN REASON BEYOND CONTROL AND, H ENCE, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BE CALLED BACK AND ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BE G RANTED FOR PRESENTATION OF THE CASE BEFORE HIM. THE LD. DR OPP OSED THIS ITA NO.6062 TO 6066/DEL/2012 3 PROPOSITION. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ENDS O F JUSTICE WOULD MEET ADEQUATELY IF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A). WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AN D DIRECT HIM TO DECIDE THE APPEALS AFRESH AS PER LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR HAS UNDERTAKEN TO EXTEND FULL CO-OPERATION TO THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE FRESH DISPOSAL OF APPEALS. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IF THE ASSESSEE AGAIN REMAINS DEFIANT IN THE FRESH PROCEED INGS, THE LD. CIT(A) IS ENTITLED TO DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE A SSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.07.201 5. SD/- SD/- [A.T. VARKEY] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 08 TH JULY, 2015. DK ITA NO.6062 TO 6066/DEL/2012 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.