Shri Anil Kumar Mittal, Kashipur V. ITO, Kashipur

ITA 826/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4738 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHIM SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH A AA A : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN, ,, , JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO.826/DEL/2013 826/DEL/2013 826/DEL/2013 826/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2009 2009 2009 2009- -- -10 1010 10 SHRI ANIL KUMAR MITTAL, SHRI ANIL KUMAR MITTAL, SHRI ANIL KUMAR MITTAL, SHRI ANIL KUMAR MITTAL, RAM NAGAR ROAD, RAM NAGAR ROAD, RAM NAGAR ROAD, RAM NAGAR ROAD, KASHIPUR KASHIPUR KASHIPUR KASHIPUR 244 713. 244 713. 244 713. 244 713. PAN PAN PAN PAN : : : : AHBPM9100D. AHBPM9100D. AHBPM9100D. AHBPM9100D. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -1, 1,1, 1, KASHIPUR. KASHIPUR. KASHIPUR. KASHIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI GAUTAM JAIN, CA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BHIM SINGH, SR.DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VP VPVP VP : : : : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), DEHRADUN DATED 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 FOR THE AY 2009- 10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWEVE R, GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO INADEQUA TE OPPORTUNITY HAVING BEEN ALLOWED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT DUE TO FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, THE ASSESSE E COMPANY WENT INTO BIFR AND, THEREFORE, ITS PREMISES WERE LOCKED AT THE RELEVANT TIME. THEREFORE, NECESSARY DETAILS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED EITHER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) OR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE STATED THAT NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE COPY OF THE RELEVANT DOCU MENTS AND, THEREFORE, IF AN OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN, HE WILL BE A BLE TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSIT AND OTHER DEPOSITS FOR WHICH HUGE ADDITION OF MORE THAN ` 90 LAKHS HAS BEEN MADE. ITA-826/DEL/2013 2 4. LEARNED DR OBJECTED TO THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE MATTER TO EITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND STA TED THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS ALLOWED AT EVERY STAGE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. IN PARAGRAPH NO.3, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS R ECORDED THE FOLLOWING FINDING:- 3.0 RIGHT AT THE OUTSET, IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THIS CASE SUFFERS FROM POOR PERSUASION SINCE A NUMBER OF NOTICES FIXING VARIOUS DATES FOR HEARING HAVE GONE WITHOUT ANY FRUITFUL DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. IN FACT THE NOTICES ISSUED FOR DATES 07.08.2012 AND 11.10.2012 WERE FINAL OPPORTUNITY NOTICES. ON 11.10.2012 THE LD.AR REQUESTED FOR ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 08.11.2012. ON THE LAST DATE, THE LD .COUNSEL EXPRESSED HELPLESSNESS DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF CERTAI N DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE TO BE HANDED OVER TO HIM BY TH E APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THIS POSITION, THIS CASE IS BEING DISPOSED OFF ON THE BASIS OF FACTS ALREADY ON RECOR D. 6. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL DID APPEAR FROM TIME TO TIME. H OWEVER, HE WAS UNABLE TO MAKE PROPER REPRESENTATION FOR WANT OF NE CESSARY DOCUMENTS. THUS, IT NOT A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OR NON-COOPERATION ON ASSESSEES PART BUT IT WAS THE ASSESSEES INABIL ITY TO PRODUCE NECESSARY DETAILS BECAUSE THE PREMISES OF THE ASSES SEE WERE LOCKED AS, AT THE RELEVANT TIME, THE ASSESSEE WENT INTO BI FR. A STATEMENT AT BAR HAS BEEN MADE AT THE TIME OF HEARING THAT NOW T HE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE COPY OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND THE SAME WOULD BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AUTHORITY BEFORE WHOM THE MATT ER IS SET ASIDE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN OUR OPINION IT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUST ICE IF THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE, T HEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ITA-826/DEL/2013 3 ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO H IS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION THAT HE WILL ALLOW ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FURNISH ALL THE NE CESSARY EVIDENCE ALONGWITH THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) . 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DEEMED T O BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH AUGUST, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( (( (A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 27.08.2013 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : SHRI ANIL KUMAR MITTAL, SHRI ANIL KUMAR MITTAL, SHRI ANIL KUMAR MITTAL, SHRI ANIL KUMAR MITTAL, RAM NAGAR ROAD, KASHIPUR RAM NAGAR ROAD, KASHIPUR RAM NAGAR ROAD, KASHIPUR RAM NAGAR ROAD, KASHIPUR 244 713. 244 713. 244 713. 244 713. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICE R, INCOME TAX OFFICE R, INCOME TAX OFFICE R, INCOME TAX OFFICE R, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -1, KASHIPUR. 1, KASHIPUR. 1, KASHIPUR. 1, KASHIPUR. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR