Sh. Binda Hooda, Haryana V. ITO, Rohtak

ITA 620/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3576 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVEEN GUPTA
• Keywords: Gift; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ITA NO. 620(DEL)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 BINDU HOODA, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, H.NO. 435, WARD 11, VS. WARD-3, ROHTAK. ARYA NAGAR, BAHADURGARH, DISTT. JHAJJAR. PAN-ABPPH3753F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NAVEEN GUPTA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AMRENDRA KUMAR, SR. DR ORDER PER K.D. RANJAN: A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ARISES OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), ROHTAK. THE RELEVANT GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- (I) THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT GRA NTING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE APPELLANT. (II) THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMI NG ADDITION OF RS. 40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM THE BR OTHER U/S 69 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, ALTHOUGH ALL NECESSARY EVIDENC ES WERE FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (III) THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRM ING ADDITION OF RS. 60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT TREATED BY THE LD. AO AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLO SED SOURCES, WHICH IS ALSO IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 69 OF THE IT ACT. ITA NO. 620(DEL)/2010 2 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTE D BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY LD. CIT(APPE ALS), ROHTAK WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, LD. C IT(APPEALS) HAS PASSED EX- PARTE ORDER. HE ACCORDINGLY REQUESTED THAT MAT TER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT(APPEALS) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECID E THE APPEAL AFRESH. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THR OUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS A FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD PASSED EX- PARTE ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT BEEN SERVED UPON T HE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MATTER SHOU LD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), WHO WILL DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JULY, 2010. SD/- SD/- (I.P.BANSAL) (K.D.RANJAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF ORDER: 16TH JULY, 2010. SP SATIA ITA NO. 620(DEL)/2010 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- BINDU HOODA, BAHADURGARH. ITO, WARD-3, ROHTAK. CIT(A) CIT THE DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.