Sunita Garg, Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 39(4), New Delhi

ITA 6405/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4736 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADEEP KUMAR MEEL
• Assessee Lawyers: MEENU AGARWAL
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6405/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SUNITA GARG, VS. ITO, WARD 39(4), 112, SWASTIK APARTMENTS, NEW DELHI SECTOR-13, ROHINI, DELHI 110 085 (PAN: AAGPG3789G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MS. MEENU AGARWAL, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. PRADEEP KUMAR MEEL. SR. D R. ORDER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 30.7.2018 OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS)-13, NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APP ELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND OUG HT TO HAVE HELD THAT CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT OF AS SESSEE IS DUE TO SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE DISPUT ED PERIOD. 2 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE REASONS FOR NOT PRODUCING THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER BEFORE REJECTING THE PLEA TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES BY THE APPELLANT 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH E REASON PROVIDED IN APPEAL FILED VIA FORM 35 FOR NON-ADHERE NCE TO THE NOTICES SENT BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER 5. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) REJECTED THE APPLICATIO N FOR SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS UNDER RULE 46A ON THE BASIS TH AT IT WAS NOT IN PROPER APPLICATION, THOUGH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY SPECIFIC FORMAT. 6. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT AO BE DIRECTE D TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY CONSIDERING THE CASH DEPOSI TS ARE RELATED TO BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT 7. WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS, ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ISSUED AT AN INCOME AT RS. 16,26,615/- AS AGAINST T HE NIL TAXABLE INCOME VIDE APPELLANT ORDER U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT AND A DEMAND OF RS. 8,38,831/- HAS BEEN RAISED U/S. 156 OF THE ACT. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND / O R AMEND ALL OR ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3 4. DURING THE HEARING, LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, HA S STATED THAT AO HAS PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER DATED 30.11.2017 U/ S. 147/144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE LD. C IT(A) HAS ALSO REJECTION THE APPLICATION FOR SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS UNDER RULE 46A ON THE BASIS THAT IT WAS NOT IN PROPER APPLICATION, THOUGH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY SPE CIFIC FORMAT. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. I FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. CO UNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT VIDE EXPARTE ORDER DATED 30.11.2017 U/S. 147/144 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. I F URTHER FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEES COUNSEL THAT EVEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO REJECTED THE APPL ICATION FOR SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS UNDER RULE 46A ON THE BASIS T HAT IT WAS NOT IN PROPER APPLICATION, THOUGH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 4 6A DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY SPECIFIC FORMAT. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE AFRESH UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTE D TO FILE ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE AND FU LLY COOPERATE 4 WITH THE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29-10-2018. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29-10-2018 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI. 5