Suresh Kumar Todi, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 35(4), New Delhi

ITA 8015/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9993 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-2” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 8015/DEL/2019 [Assessment Year: 2010-11 Suresh Kumar Todi, 15/5, Old Chandrawal, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054. PAN- AENPT1763L Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(4), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 11.01.2022 Date of pronouncement 19.01.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, New Delhi, dated 24-07-2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in computing the total income of the appellant at Rs. 10,42,100/- for the A.Y. 2010-11 pased on 15.12.2017 on the basis of surmises & conjecture. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 10,42,100/- that are deposited in the bank by treating the same as unexplained 2 ITA 8015/Del/2019 Suresh Kumar Todi Vs. ITO ignoring that the evidences the assessee has are even capable of explaining the cash deposits by ignoring and rejecting the additional evidnces filed by the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not admitting the additional evidences submitted by the assessee on the basis of surmises & conjecture without applying mind and ignoring the submissions and prayer of the assessee and just relying on baseless objection of the Ld. Assessing Officer. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in perusing the Remand Report of the AO, which is confirng the evidences filed by the assessee such as Statemewnts of affairs as on 31.03.2010, Receipt and Payment A/c, P&L A/c and summary of cash deposits for the eyar under consideration, and concluding that assessee should have submitted more documents as referred by AO, ignoring the fact that Ao has not sought any further evidences from assessee and submitted Remand Report summarily and denying opportunity to the assessee and leading to unnecessary litigation. 5. The assessee reserves his right to add or delete any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. At the time of hearing no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the record that the notice sent through speed post has been duly served upon the assessee. However, in past the notices sent, were returned by the postal authoriteis. Under the facts, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee. 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case the assessment was reopened and thereafter the assessment was framed under Section 144 read 3 ITA 8015/Del/2019 Suresh Kumar Todi Vs. ITO with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, as no one had appeared before the assessing authority on behalf of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against the ex parte assessment, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal. It is also seen that before the learned CIT(A), the assessee had filed application for additional evidence. That was also dismissed by the learned CIT(A). Aggrieved, against this, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The learned Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee has been negligent throughout and did not appear before the assessing authority. Moreover, he could not support his claim before the CIT(Appeals). 6. I have heard the learned DR and perused the material on record. It is seen from the record that there was no representation before the Assessing Officer on behalf of the assessee. It is further noticed that before the learned CIT(A), the assessee had filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. That application was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). After considering the totality of the facts and the material placed before me, I am of the considered view that looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the assessee should have been given an opportunity to explain his case. I, therefore, in the interest of 4 ITA 8015/Del/2019 Suresh Kumar Todi Vs. ITO principles of natural justice, hereby set aside the orders of authorities below and restore the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. Ground raised in the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Madan PalVerma* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Draft dictated 17.01.2022 Draft placed before author 17.01.2022 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Order signed and pronounced on 19.01.2022 File comes to P.S. 19.01.2022 File sent to the Bench Clerk 19.01.2022 Date on which file goes to the AR Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk Date of dispatch of Order Date of uploading on the website .01.2022