Mr. Ashok Malhotra, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6242/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4848 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANPREET SINGH KAPOOR PARTNER
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.6241/DEL./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ITA NO.6242/DEL./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) ITA NO.6243/DEL./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITA NO.6244/DEL./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) ITA NO.6245/DEL./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) ITA NO.6246/DEL./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) SHRI ASHOK MALHOTRA, VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 15, HOUSE NO.1310, NEW DELHI. DR. MUKHERJEE NAGAR, DELHI. (PAN : AAPPM8352G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANPREET SINGH, KAPOOR, PARTNER REVENUE BY : SHRI S.S. RANA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.10.2018 DATE OF ORDER : 25.10.2018 O R D E R ITA NOS.6241 TO 6246/DEL./2015 2 PER BENCH : SINCE COMMON QUESTIONS OF FACTS AND LAW HAVE BEEN R AISED IN ALL THE AFORESAID APPEALS, THE SAME ARE BEING DI SPOSED OFF BY WAY OF CONSOLIDATED ORDER TO AVOID REPETITION OF DISCUS SION. 2. APPELLANT, ASHOK MALHOTRA (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSED) BY FILING PRESENT APPEALS SOUGHT TO SET A SIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.09.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXVI, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THAT FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICA TION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH CO NDUCTED BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) AT THE RESIDE NCE OF ASSESSEE ON 27.07.2007 ALONG WITH SEARCHES CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENCES OF DDA OFFICIALS, WHEREIN CASH OF RS.19,00,000/-, GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 7 KG (APPROXIMATELY), 17 LUXURY CARS WITH VIP NUMBER PLATES, 113 BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE AN D FAMILY MEMBERS OPERATING FROM THE SAME ADDRESS, ASSESSMENT WAS RE- OPENED. ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL BY THE CBI , REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED. ACCORDINGLY, DECLINING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO ASSESSED THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.6241 TO 6246/DEL./2015 3 4. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) BY WAY OF FILING APPEAL WHO HAS DISMISSED THE SAME ON GROUND OF NON- APPEARANCE. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COM E UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. BARE PERUSAL OF IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CI T(A) GOES TO PROVE THAT THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED NOT O N MERIT BUT FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE. NO DO UBT, LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN SIX OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF WH ICH ON TWO DATES IT IS NOT SHOWN IF HE WAS SERVED OR NOT AND O N NEXT THREE DATES, ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS WERE FILED WHICH WE RE ALLOWED AND ON THE LAST DATE FIXED BY LD. CIT I.E. 15.09.2015, IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED AND APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECE IVED ON 15.10.2015 AND WAS BECAME INFRUCTUOUS. 7. CHRONOLOGY OF DATES FIXED BY LD. CIT(A) FOR HEAR ING GIVEN IN THE TABULATED FORM AT PAGE 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORD ER APPARENTLY GOES TO PROVE THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY HAS NOT BEE N GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THE APPEAL BECAUSE WHEN THE ASSES SEE HAS ENGAGED A TAX EXPERT AS HIS REPRESENTATIVE AND HAS BEEN MOVING ITA NOS.6241 TO 6246/DEL./2015 4 ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS, HE CANNOT BE FAULTED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THE LD. SR. DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GRANTED TO HIM, AS ALREADY SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO HIM. 8. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT TO DECIDE THE CONTR OVERSY AT HAND ONCE FOR ALL, ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY IS REQUIRED TO B E GRANTED AS THE APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT ON MERIT BUT FOR NON- PROSECUTION. SO, WE REMAND ALL THE CASES BACK TO L D. CIT(A) TO DECIDE ON MERIT WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 05.11.2018 AND NO SEPARATE NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED TO HIM. CONSEQUENTLY PRESENT APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 25 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.