Tarun Thapar, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6591/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7037 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 6591/DEL/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIA L MEMBER I.T.A .N O.-6591/DEL/2015 (ASSESSME NT YEAR-2009-10) TARUN THAPAR C-420, DEFENCE COLONY NEW DELHI ABAPT5187E (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-25(1) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 3/9/2015 PASSED BY CIT (A) 9, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE FOLLOWS:- 1. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE PAYMENT TO IDEA CELLUL AR AMOUNTING TO RS.1,10,012/-. 2. THAT BEFORE GOING AHEAD WITH THE IMPUGNED ADDITI ON, LD. A.O FAILED TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD W HICH IS IN CLEAR VIOLATION AND CONTRAVENTION OF THE PRINCIP LE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY T. VASANTHAN, DR DATE OF HEARING 09.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17.02.2016 2 ITA NO. 6591/DEL/2015 3. THE LD. A.O HAS ERRED IN LAW AND HAS NOT GIVEN A NY FURTHER TIME AND OPPORTUNITY ON WRONG SUBMISSION MISTAKENLY TO PROVE OUR SELF BONAFIED AND GENUINE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR IN T. S. KISAN. AS PE R AIR INFORMATION, ASSESSEE MADE A PAYMENT OF RS.1,10,012 /- AND RS.1,10,012/- ON 31/3/2009 TO IDEA CELLULAR. THE A SSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS TO THE ABOVE COMPANY AND SOURCE THEREOF. BUT ASSESSEE FAILED T O SUBMIT ANY DETAILS EXCEPT THAT HE DID NOT PAY ANY AMOUNT TO TH E ABOVE COMPANY. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE SAME ENTRY WAS RE PEATED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ADDED IN ITS INCOME AS UNEXPLAINED EX PENSES. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANAT ION. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE ABOVE AMOUNT WAS ADDED BACK BY THE A.O I N THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A N ADDITION OF RS.1, 10,012/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES. 4. THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NONE APPEARED FOR T HE ASSESSEE, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE HAVE TAKEN UP THE MATTER AND DECIDING THE ISSUE ON MERIT. IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR G IVING AN EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE IDEA CELLULAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO CRYPTIC WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CIT (A) THOUGH HAS DISCUSSED VARIOUS CA SE LAWS DID NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO LOOK INTO THE ASPECT OF THE PAY MENTS MADE TO THE IDEA CELLULAR BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS MATTERS NEEDS TO 3 ITA NO. 6591/DEL/2015 BE VERIFIED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, W E DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE ON RECORD ALL THE RELEVAN T DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE SAID PAYMENT, NEEDLESS TO SAY THE AS SESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. 5. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH OF FEBRUARY 2016. SD/- SD/- ( S. V. MEHROTRA) (SUCH ITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17/02/2016 *R. NAHEED* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 09.02.2016 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 10.02.2016 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE .02.2016 JM/AM 4 ITA NO. 6591/DEL/2015 THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. .02.2016 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 18.02.2016 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON .02.2016 PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 18.02.2016 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.