Nidhi Bansal, Faridabad V. ITO ward-2(1), Faridabad

ITA 6255/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6626 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.6255/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) SMT. NIDHI BANSAL F-91, SECTOR-10 FARIDABAD. PAN-AQLPB 1885P VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. R.K. GUPTA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 16.08.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09.09.2021 HEARING CONDUCT ED VIA WEBEX ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W HEREIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 22.05.2019 OF CIT(A) -FARIDABAD PERTAINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ASSAILED ON VARIOUS GROU NDS ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION AS WELL AS ON THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTI ON AND ALSO ON LACK OF OPPORTUNITY. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE NEXT GROUND ALSO THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IT W AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO HEAR THE LD. SR. DR AND PROCEED WITH THE APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ON MERITS. ITA NO.6255 / DEL/2019 SMT. NIDHI BANSAL VS. ITO PAGE 2 OF 3 3. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT ON THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION THERE WAS A GENERALISTIC JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE B EFORE THE CIT(A) VIDE GROUND NO. 1 WHICH HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY ELABORATED VIDE GROUND NO.1 & 2 IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING BEFORE THE ITAT. ON THESE SPECI FIC ISSUES IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING OF THE CIT(A) AS IT WA S NOT ARGUED IN SUCH A MANNER. THE FACT THAT IT WAS A LEGAL GROUND MAINTA INABLE IN LAW IS NOT IN DISPUTE. 4. BEFORE THE ITT THE CHALLENGE VIDE GROUND NO.1 IS THAT THE JURISDICTION WAS ASSUMED WITHOUT RECORDING VALID REASONS AND WIT HOUT OBTAINING VALID APPROVAL AS PER LAW. 5. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING ON THESE ISSUES AF TER HEARING THE LD. SR. DR IT WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED AND RESTORE THE ISSUES BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO FIRST DECIDE THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE AND THEREAFTER IF NEED BE PROC EED TO DECIDE THE ISSUES ON MERITS. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN INTERESTS IS DIREC TED TO ENSURE FULL AND PROPER COOPERATION AND PARTICIPATION BEFORE THE CIT(A). S AID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AT THE TIME OF VIRTUAL HEARING ITSELF IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES WEBEX. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 09 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 SD/- (D IVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.6255 / DEL/2019 SMT. NIDHI BANSAL VS. ITO PAGE 3 OF 3 DATED: 09/09/2021 PK/PS *KAVITA ARORA, SPS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI