Sh. Rakesh Kumar Suri, Noida V. ITO, Noida

ITA 6785/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5119 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6785/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 RAKESH KUMAR SURI, VS. ITO, WARD -3, S/O SH. TILAK RAJ SURI, NOIDA C-331, SECTOR-10, NOIDA (PAN: ABHPS8483K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. MANOJ KUMAR, CA REVENUE BY : SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 29.8.2014 OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS), NOIDA RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, BAD AT LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AS NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT THE LD. AO HAS WRONGLY ADDED UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 17,41,277/- TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND FINDINGS, AS THESE ARE VERY GENUINE LOANS . 4. THAT THE LD. AO HAS WRONGLY ADDED 25% OF SUNDRY CREDITORS (OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.3.2008) OF RS. 3,38,424/- TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT 2 ANY BASIS AND FINDINGS, AS ALL THE CREDITORS ARE CONFIRMED. 5. THE APPELLANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD/DELETE/ALTER / AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF WRITTEN ABOVE. 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. 4. DURING THE HEARING, LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, HA S STATED THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARI NG AS NOTICE OF HEARING WAS NOT RECEIVED TO THE ASSESSEE AND DESPIT E THAT HE PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER 29.8.2014. HE FURTHER STATED TH AT ASSESSEE IS IN POSSESSION OF ALL THE DOCUMENTS/ EVIDENCES TO SUBST ANTIATE ITS CASE, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A). T HEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASID E TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKES T O APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT (A) DURING THE PROCEEDINGS, IF THE BENCH SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF T HE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I F IND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER DATED 29.8.2014, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE DESERVE TO BE SET A SIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SA ME AS PER LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER APPRECIATING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO BE FILED BY THE 3 ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS COUNSEL IS DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 14.09.2017 AT 10.00 AM AND FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) AND DID NOT SEEK ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT AND PRODUCE ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC ES BEFORE HIM. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 08-08-2017. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 08-08-2017 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. 4