Uma Suri (L/H of Ravi Suri), New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 43(1), New Delhi

ITA 8318/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6563 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.8318/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-2015 UMA SURI (L/H OF RAVI SURI), 9D, TYPE A, WELCOME GROUP COOPERATIVE, PLOT NO.6, SECTOR-3, NEW DELHI. VS. ITO, WARD-43(1), NEW DELHI. TAN/PAN: ASIPS1759G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SMT. PREMLATA BANSAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SURENDER PAL, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 09 12 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07 02 2019 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.09.2019 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XV, DELHI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S.143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND UNDER LAW, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN PASSING AN EX-PARTE ORDER AGAINST THE APPELLANT. I.T.A. NO.8318/DEL/2019 2 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND UNDER LAW, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN NOT CONS IDERING THAT THERE WAS NON-COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLA NT DUE TO THE DEATH OF THE APPELLANT I.E. MR. RAVI SURI, WHIC H LEAD TO NON- REPRESENTATION OF THE CASE. 3. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF RS. 2,57,88,750/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 69A OF THE ACT. 4. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF RS. 33,86,354/- WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN. 2. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE LEGAL HEI R OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS EXPIRED ON 02.08.2019. THE FACTS I N BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28 .07.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.93,85,570/-. THE ASSESSE ES CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS FOR CASH DEPOSIT IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICES U/S.143(2) HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE REVEALED THAT HE HAS DEPOSITED CASH FOR SUMS AGGREGATING TO RS.2,57,88,750/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. AFTER DETAILED REASONING AND FINDING, ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION U/S.69A. FURTHER, HE HAS ALSO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.33,86,354/- IN RESPECT OF FOUR PLOTS SOLD TO M/S. SHREE PADAM INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE AGR ICULTURAL LAND WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 2(14). THE APPEAL W AS FILED BY LATE SHRI RAVI SURI, THE ASSESSEE, AND AS PER THE NOTI NG OF THE LD. CIT(A) AT PARAGRAPH 3, ON INITIAL DATES OF HEARING, ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT BUT LATER ON NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO.8318/DEL/2019 3 ACCORDINGLY, HE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX-PAR TE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER. 3. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPIRED AND DUE TO THIS REASON COMPLIANCE COULD NOT BE MADE. ACCO RDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE DECIDED A FRESH AND ON MERITS. 4. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIO N IF THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED A FRESH. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIA L PLACED ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT INITIALLY ASSESSEE HAD MADE CO MPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND ADJOUR NMENT WAS SOUGHT. HOWEVER, LATER ON, WHEN ASSESSEE HAD DI ED, THE NOTICES SENT COULD NOT BE RESPONDED AND ACCORDINGLY L D. CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE VIDE ORDER DATED 23.09.2 019, I.E., JUST AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE ASSESSEE. APART FROM THAT, THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED PERSON BECAUS E THAT INFORMATION WAS NOT PLACED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 6. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AN D IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, WE ARE REMANDING THE IS SUE RAISED IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BEFORE US, BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED A FRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUB STANTIATE ITS CASE. I.T.A. NO.8318/DEL/2019 4 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH DECEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [AMIT SHUKLA] [VICE PRESIDENT] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: DECEMBER, 2019 PKK: