Sh. Vinod Kumar Bhati, Gautam Budh Nagar V. ITO, Noida

ITA 6800/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1837 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJANA
• Assessee Lawyers: SONIA MATHUR
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & SHRI C.M. GARG, JM ITA NO.6800/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 VINOD KUMAR BHATI, R/O SUNARWALI GALI, SURAJPUR, GREATER NOIDA, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, PAN: AJTPB2830K VS. ITO, WARD-1(4), NOIDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MS SONIA MATHUR, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI P. DAM KANUNJANA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.12.2015 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 8.8.2014 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2009-10. ITA NO.6800/DEL/2014 2 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.12,35,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED `THE ACT) . 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE EARNED COMMISSION FROM SALE OF PROPERTY. THE AO, VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 1.12.2011, REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FOR SALE OF PROPERTY ON WHICH COMMISSION WAS EARNED. THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO ON 16.12.2011 EXPRE SSING HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCE AT SUCH A SHORT NOTIC E. HE RECORDED STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE RELEVANT PART OF WHI CH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. NOT CONVINCE D WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.12,35,000 /-. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTAIN DETAILS BEFORE US ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY WHICH RESULTED INTO THE EARNING OF COMMISSION OF INCOME. SUCH DETAILS, THOUGH REFERRE D TO IN THE IMPUGNED ITA NO.6800/DEL/2014 3 ORDER, BUT, WERE NOT GONE INTO BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE TECHNICALLY DID NOT FILE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE. WE FIND THAT THE AO ALSO GAVE VERY SHORT TIME TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PR ODUCING NECESSARY DETAILS INASMUCH AS THE REQUIREMENT WAS RAISED ON 1 .12.2011 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF GOT PASSED WITHIN 15 DAYS O N 16.12.2011. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET ADEQUATELY IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTO RED TO THE FILE OF AO. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT THE AO TO DECIDE TH IS ISSUE AFRESH AS PER LAW, AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO FILE FRESH EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.12.201 5. SD/- SD/- [C.M. GARG] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015. DK ITA NO.6800/DEL/2014 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.