Pravin Khandelwal, New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi

ITA 7747/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5776 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA NEB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.-7747/DEL/2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) PRAVIN KHANDELWAL 130, SHARDA NIKETAN, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI. AHZPK1936B VS ACIT CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY MS. ASHIMA NEB, SR. DR ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DT. 15.09.2017OF CIT(A)-25 PE RTAINING TO 2012- 13 AY ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. SINCE THE PRESENT APPE AL QUA GROUND NO. 2 COULD BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO PROCEED WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE LD. SR. DR. 2. THE SPECIFIC GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODU CED HEREUNDER: 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE AO HAD ERRED IN NOT PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER WITH RESPECT TO VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. AS SUCH, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS BAD UNDER LAW AND ARE LIABLE TO BE Q UASHED. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE RETURNED AN INCOME OF RS. 3,50,000/- FROM SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY AND INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSMENT IN THE SCRUTINY PROCEED INGS WAS CONCLUDED AT AN INCOME OF RS. 9,99,680/-. THE SAID ORDER W AS CHALLENGED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). INITIALLY THE ASSESS EE AFTER FILING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SOUGHT TIME THROUGH SH. NEERAJ SHARM A ARTICLE ASSISTANT, HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY REMAINED ABSENT CONSIDE RING THIS FACT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED HOLDING AS UNDER: 8.3 IT IS SEEN THAT SH. NEERAJ SHARMA, ARTICLE ASS ISTANT, ATTENDED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT, WHICH WAS GRANTED. HOWEVER, THEREAFTE R NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED SUBSEQUENTLY FROM THIS OFFICE , THOUGH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE APPELLANT DELIB ERATELY SOUGHT TO EVADE THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 8.4 AS ALREADY MENTIONED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT, BY D ELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY AVOIDING TO ATTEND IN THE APPELLATE P ROCEEDINGS FAILED TO PRODUCE DATE OF HEARING 26.04.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27.06.2018 ITA 7747/DEL/2017 PAGE 2 OF 2 EVIDENCE AND PREVENTED INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION, AN D HENCE, AN ADVERSE VIEW IS TO BE TAKEN. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT REBUT THE FINDIN GS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT HAD OPPORTUNITY DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO PRO VE THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NOT JUSTIFIED, BUT THE A PPELLANT EVADED THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 8.5 THE APPELLANT COULD NOT GIVE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY OF ITS CLAIMS. SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT I N THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, BUT IT EVADED THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS APPARENTLY T HE APPELLANT BEING AWARE THAT FURTHER INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AGAINST THE APPELLAN T COULD BE BROUGHT ON RECORD DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, AND HENCE EVADED THE PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, THE CLAIMS OF THE APPELLANT ARE TREATED AS BASELESS AND SELF SERVING CLAIMS AND ARE HEREBY REJECTED. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT JUSTIFY T HE CLAIM OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,49,681/-WHICH INCLUDED INTEREST OF RS. 5,89,050/-, SALARY OF RS. 54,000/- AND CONVEYANCE OF RS. 6,631/- AGAINST THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, BEING INTEREST RECEIVE FROM M/S PRANAY IMPEX PVT. L TD. THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,49,681/- IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL NO. 1 & 2 ARE HEREBY REJECTED. 4. THE LD. SR. DR RELIES UPON THE ORDER. HOWEVER, CONSIDE RING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE VERY FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE ITAT DEMONSTRATES THE FACT THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESS EE FOR THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REMAINS. IT IS FURT HER SEEN ON A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT IT OES NOT BRING OUT THE FACT AS TO WHAT SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF SUBS TANTIAL JUSTICE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE BACK TO THE FILE O F CIT(APPEALS) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.06.2018. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *KAVITA ARORA/POONAM(CHD) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT 6. TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI