Dr. Subodh Kumar Goel, Faridabad V. ACIT, Faridabad

ITA 6284/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0687 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JANARDAN DAS SENIOR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6284/DEL./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) DR. SUBODH KUMAR GOEL, VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, HOUSE NO.916, SECTOR 14, FARIDABAD. FARIDABAD. (PAN : AEFPG1772E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI JANARDAN DAS, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.09.2018 DATE OF ORDER : 17.09.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPELLANT, DR. SUBODH KUMAR GOEL, (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.09.2015 PASSED BY LD. CIT (APPEALS)-3, GUR GAON QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS L EARNED CIT (APPEAL)-3, GURGAON HAS ERRED WHILE ADDING / UP HOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,62,292/- TO THE DECLARED INCOME, I NSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION IN QUESTION WAS EXPLAINED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. THAT. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL)-3 GURGAON HAS ERR ED WHILE PASSING THE PRESENT EX PARTY ORDER WITHOUT PR OVIDING JUST AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ON 17-06 -2015 THE ITA NO.6284/DEL./2015 2 ASSESSEE APPEARED AND IT WAS INFORMED BY THE % LEAR NED CIT (APPEAL)-3, GURGAON THAT THE PRESENT OFFICER MRS T. TONSING PRASAD, CIT (APPEAL)-3 HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED AND THE NEW OFFICER HAS NOT YET TAKING CHARGE. NOTICE CALLING FOR 07-08 -2015 AS MENTIONED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL)-3 GURGAON WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE. THAT ON 03-09-2015, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR DUE TO MI STAKEN BELIEF THAT THE OFFICE IS NOT WORKING. IT IS CLARIFIED THA T THERE WERE 10 APPEALS OF THE GROUP PARTLY FIXED FOR 02-09-2015 AN D PARTLY FOR 03.09.2015. ON 02.09.2015 THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE SHRI P.D.MITTAL, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT APPEARED AND IT WA S INFORMED AT THE GATE ITSELF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IS ON STRIKE AND FRESH NOTICES WILL BE SENT. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL)-3 GURGAON IS ALSO WRONG WHILE PASSING THE ORDER EX PARTY WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERIT OF THE APPEAL. 4. THAT THE ENTIRE ORDER IS WRONG, ARBITRARY, ILLEG AL, UNJUST AGAINST THE FACTS AS WELL AS AGAINST THE LAW. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICA TION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.1, 62,292/- (RS.1,03,100/- + RS.59,192/-) ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF TH E ASSESSEE AND FROM HIS LOCKER AND UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE SHARE APPL ICATION MONEY OF RS.15,00,000/- IN M/S. PULKEET ENGG. PVT. LTD. AND M/S. BIRLA SUNLIFE AND HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE MANNER IN WHICH TOTAL DISCLOSURE WAS MADE DURING TH E RECORDING OF THE STATEMENT U/S 132 (4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 A ND THEREBY ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.53,38,780/-. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEVED, TH E ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT AP PEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITA NO.6284/DEL./2015 3 REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. BARE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A) SHOWS THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FIRST TIME ISSUED THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 17.06.2015 THEN ON 07.08.2015 AND THEN ON 03.09.2015, BUT WITH OUT EXPLAINING THE FATE OF THE NOTICE, WHETHER THE SAME WAS DELIVERED OR RECEI VED BACK UNDELIVERED TO THE ASSESSEE, PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT APPEARS THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL WITHIN LESS THAN 3 MONTHS IN HASTE WITHOUT PROVIDIN G ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, IMPUGNE D ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND FILE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE LD. CIT (A) TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 17 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 17 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-3, GURGAON. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.