Narender Singh, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 43(2), New Delhi

ITA 6550/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1367 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FPSH
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-1, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO. 6550/DEL/2019 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2011-12 NARENDER SINGH, VILL. UJWA, NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI-110073 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-43(2), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. BYFPS2815H ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. R. K. GUPTA, SR. DR DATE OF HEAR ING: 1 7 . 06 .20 2 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29 .06 .20 2 1 ORDER PER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-15, NEW DELHI DATED 07. 06.2019. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE: A. EX PARTE ORDER 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN PASSING THE EX PARTE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY T O THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DATE OF HEARING WAS FIXED FOR 08.05.2019, ON WHICH DATE THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SOUGHT AN ADJOURNMENT AND THE HEARING OF THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 05.06.2019, WHICH WAS A PUBLIC HOLIDAY . NO FRESH NOTICE OF HEARING WAS GIVEN AND AN EX PART E ITA NO. 6550/DEL/2019 NARENDER SINGH 2 ORDER WAS PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) ON 07.06.2019. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A), MAY BE SET ASIDE. B. ON MERIT 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] IS BAD BOTH IN THE EYE OF LA W AND ON FACTS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING S UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 148 ARE BAD IN LAW AS THE CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED UNDE R THE STATUTE HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED AND COMPLIED WITH. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN CONFIRMING TH E ORDER OF THE AO DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE LEARNED AO ARE BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW AS THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE ISS UE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ARE BAD IN THE EYE OF L AW AND ARE VAGUE. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN CONFIRMING TH E ORDER OF THE AO DESPITE THE FACT THAT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE LEARNED AO ARE BAD IN THE EYE OF LAW AS THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE REASONS RECORDED AND THE BELIEF FORMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING ARE BAD IN LAW, AS T HE SAME HAVE BEEN RECORDED WITHOUT INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ID. CIT(A)HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THAT NO PROPER APPROVAL AS PER SECTION 151 HAVING BEEN ITA NO. 6550/DEL/2019 NARENDER SINGH 3 TAKEN, THE PROCEEDINGS BECOME BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 9. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10,40,000/-, BEING CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 10. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,40,000/- DEPOSITED IN BANK, WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AMOUNT OF CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK DURING THE SAME PERIOD. 3. ON GOING THROUGH THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE PR IMARY CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE CASE WAS AD JOURNED TO A PUBLIC HOLIDAY AND COULD NOT GET FAIR OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD. WE FIND THAT THE GROUNDS TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSEE A RE REASONABLE ENOUGH, NECESSITATING THE CASE TO BE RES TORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) WITH DIRECTIONS TO P ROVIDE DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING A SPEAKI NG ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/06/2021. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B. R. R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER AC COUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29/06/2021 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR