Ritu Miglani, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 648/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7731 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIT LAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 648/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 648/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 -09 RITU MIGLANI VS. ITO 44, DSIDC COMPLEX, WARD-31 (3) MATA SUNDRI ROAD NEW DELHI 110 002 NEW DELHI 110 002. PAN AJYPM8686M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MADAN MOHAN MIGLANI, FATHER -IN- LAW DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI AMRIT LAL, SR . DR DATE OF HEARING : 16.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.5 .2016 O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) XXVIII, NEW DELHI DATED 25.11.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ITA NO. 648/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-09 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CA REFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BEFO RE TRIBUNAL. WHEN THE CASE WAS HEARD FOR HEARING SHRI M.M. MIGLA NI, FATHER - IN - LAW OF THE ASSESSE APPEARED AND SUBMITTED THAT SINC E AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS UN DER ADVANCED STAGE OF PREGNANCY WITH COMPLICATION EXPECTING DELI VERY AT ANY MOMENT AND CONFINED TO STRICT BED REST WAS PREVENTE D AND HANDICAPPED THE ASSESSEE TO PROPERLY PRODUCE HER CA SE BY SUPPORTING RELEVANT MATERIAL, CONFIRMATIONS, STATEM ENTS AND EVIDENCE ETC. IN SHORT TIME GIVEN BY THE AO FOR COMPLIANCE. SHRI MIGLANI PRAYED THAT IN THIS SITUATION THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVIDE D DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO SUBMIT HER CASE DURING ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS AND TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE AO, SHRI MIGLANI FURTHER REQUESTED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVIDED THE SUFFICIEN T OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE, ADDUCE AND LEAD TO EVIDENCE VERY RELEVANT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE CASE MAY K INDLY BE SENT TO AO FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT. 3. THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ACTION OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER. HOWEVER HE COU LD NOT CONTROVERT ITA NO. 648/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-09 3 THIS FACT THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TH E ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED TO PRODUCE HIS CASE PROPERLY DUE TO ADVAN CED STAGE OF PREGNANCY WITH COMPLICATION AND SHE WAS CONFINED TO STRICT BED REST DURING THIS PERIOD. 4. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND RIVAL SUBMISSION S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND IMPUGNED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE ASESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES AND DIRECTI ONS OF THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSMEN T WAS COMPLETED EX PARTE UNDER THE BEST JUDGMENT PREMISE. FROM THE APPELLATE ORDER WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY DID NOT PROPERLY ADJUDICATED THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY PASSING A C RYPTIC ORDER WITHOUT ANY GROUNDWISE ADJUDICATION. EVEN THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN R EJECTED AT THE THRESHOLD BY OBSERVING SOME TECHNICAL DEFICIENCIES WHICH ARE NOT A PROPER WAY OF ADJUDICATION FOR A QUASI JUDICIAL AUT HORITY. 5. ON THE BASIS OF FORE GOING DISCUSSIONS WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED DUE TO REASONABLE AND COGENT REASONS FROM SUBMITTING HER CASE BEFORE THE AO AND THE ITA NO. 648/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-09 4 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED EX PARTE UNDER BEST JUDGMENT PREMISE. FURTHERMORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO D ISMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY PROPER DELIBERATION AND BY INCORRECTLY REJECTING THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBM ITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THATS TOO WITHOUT CALLING ANY REMAND REPO RT FROM THE AO AND THUS HER SAID ACTION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED VIEW THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUE DESERVES TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO ASSESSMENT STAGE FOR FRESH AND DENOVO ADJUDICATION AND THUS THE CASE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDI CATION AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING FOR THE ASESSEE AND WITH OUT BEING PREJUDICED FROM THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT AND IMPUGED APPELLATE ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AS INDICATED ABO VE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATED 17 TH MAY, 2016 VEENA COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: ITA NO. 648/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-09 5 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT REGISTRAR, ITAT