Manghani Re Rolling Ltd, New Delhi V. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 8173/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5383 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARUL SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI SMC BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 8173/DEL/2018 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10] M/S MANGHANI RE ROLLING LTD., VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 1 6(1), PLOT NO. 21, PHASE-2, C.R. BLDG., BADLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 85 (PAN: AACCM5468K) [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY : MS. PARUL SINGH, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS]-15, NEW DELHI DATED 30.7.2018 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING EXPARTE ORDER. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING ORDER WITH PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF N ATURAL JUSTICE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL ON MERIT. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 ISSUED IN THE CASE IS BAD IN LAW, WITHOUT JURISDICTION, BARRE D BY LIMITATION AND ILLEGAL AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID NOTICE ALONGWI TH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE FOUNDATION OF SUCH NOTICE ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT HOLDING SO. 2 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONTRARY TO SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 TO 1 51 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID REASS ESSMENT PROCEEDING INITIATED ALONGWITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO ON THE FOUNDATION OF SUCH PROCEEDING ARE LIA BLE TO BE QUASHED AND CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT HOLDING SO. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,00 0/- MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY / SHARE CAPITAL. 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AD IN LA W, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 18,000/- MADE B Y THE AO IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 9. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 10,00,000/- AND RS. 18,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF JURISDICT ION AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 AND CIT(A) ERRED A NOT HOLDING SO. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ONE OR MORE GROUN D OF APPEAL OR TO ALTER / MODIFY THE EXISTING GROUND BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDI CE TO EACH OTHER. 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST, IN SPITE OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE, NOR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FI LED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. HOWEVER, THE NOTICE RECEIVED BACK WIT H THE POSTAL REMARKS THAT ON ENQUIRY, IT HAS COME TO KNOWLEDGE THAT ON PLOT NO. 21 NO COMPANY OF THIS NAME IS THERE SD/- 05.2.2020. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT NO NEW ADDRESS HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE REGISTRY. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUES IN VOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SE RVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, I AM DECIDIN G THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 3 3. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EXPARTE IMP UGNED ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IN M Y VIEW THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SA ME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSE E. I HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 4.1 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE NON-COOPERATION OF THE A SSESSEE, I AM DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 29.04.2020 AT 10.00 AM FOR HEARING. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19.02.2020. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:19-02-2020 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) ASST. REGISTRAR, 5. DR ITAT, NEW DELHI 4