Sh. Naresh Sodhani, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 7041/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7143 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 37(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-2 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 7041/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SH. NARESH SODHANI, VS. ITO, WARD 37(1) D-803, PAVITRA APARTMENT, NEW DELHI VASUNDHRA ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI 110 096 (PAN: AIIPS1714K) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. P.C. YADAV, ADV. REVENUE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING ON : 05/09/2016 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 14/09/20 16 PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2014 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XXVIII, NEW DEL HI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF THE AO OF PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 OF THE I . T. ACT, 1961. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF CASH DEPOSIT IN TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS, 15,05,000/-. 2 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF RS, 17,98,399/- REPRESENTING SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARES/INVESTMENT. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF RS, 20,405/- REJECTING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80 GG. 5. THAT THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF RUDIMENTARY PRINCIPLES O F CONTEMPORARY JURISPRUDENCE. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER ANY /ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THE SAME ARE N OT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO BOTH THE PARTIES AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPART MENT, NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BY THE D EPARTMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO SERVE THE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, I AM DECIDING THIS APPEAL AS EXPARTE QUA DEPARTMENT, AFT ER HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE AS SESSEE HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM, BUT THE REVENUE AUTHORITI ES HAS NOT GIVEN THE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBS TANTIATING THE CLAIM 3 BEFORE IT. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED T HAT AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND MADE THE ADDITION. SIMILARLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNI SH ANY EXPLANATION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND LAW. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE EXPLANATION WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM, BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO UNDERTAKES THAT ASSESSEE WILL FULLY COOPERATE IN THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS AND WILL NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY HIM. I FIND CONSIDERABLE COGEN CY IN THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSE E THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE EXPLANATION WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCES FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM, BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, AS PER LAW, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESS EE IS DIRECTED TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE AO DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM AND NOT TO TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT IN THE CASE AND ALSO PRODUCE ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO T O SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. 4 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/09/2016 . SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 14/09/2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES