Harbir Singh Rathee, Jhajjar V. ITO ward-2, Rohtak

ITA 8737/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7441 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 250; 251; 246A; 22

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-1: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 8737/DEL/2019 ASSTT. YEAR 2010-11 HARBIR SINGH RATHEE, R/O 751, WARD-28, NEAR HUDA WATER WORKS, BAHADURGARH, JHAJJAR 124 507 HARYANA- 124001 PAN AKKPR9782N VS. ITO WARD -2, ROHTAK, HARYANA - 124001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 19.9.2019 IN APPEAL NO. 374/2017- 18 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-ROHTAK (LD. CIT(A), IN THE CASE OF SHRI HARBIR SINGH RATHEE (THE ASSESSEE) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, ASSESSEE PREFERRED THIS APPEAL. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI NAVEEN KUMAR GOYAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI VIJAY KUMAR KATARIA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 22/03/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22/03/2021 2 2. IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TUNE OF RS. 38,47,000/- VIDE ORDER DATED 4.12.2017 PASSED U/S 144/147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO SOUGHT TO PRODUCE SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS ETC., IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTICE OF REOPENING OR THE PENDING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND BEING AN AGRICULTURIST AND KEEPING LIVE STOCKS; THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT KNOW THE IMPLICATIONS OF TAX PROCEEDINGS; AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY THERE WAS NO PROPER REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ON THE GROUND THAT WHEN THE NOTICE WAS SOUGHT TO BE SERVED BY THE INCOME TAX INSPECTOR THE ASSESSEE REFUSED TO RECEIVE THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CONDUCT THE PROCEEDINGS DILIGENTLY AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE ADMITTED. TO THIS EXTENT THE LD. CIT(A) RECORDED REASONS. LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER, DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND OF REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY SPECIFIC REASON FOR NOT CONSIDERING THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 4. IMPUGNED ORDER CLEARLY READS THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISSIONS POINTWISE BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GONE THROUGH THE MERITS OF THESE SUBMISSIONS BUT DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. IT IS, FURTHER, NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 250 (6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) WHICH OBLIGES THE LD. CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OF 3 AN APPEAL IN WRITING, AFTER STATING THE POINTS FOR A DETERMINATION AND THEN RENDERED A DECISION ON EACH OF THE POINTS WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION WITH THE REASONS IN SUPPORT. FURTHER UNDER SECTION 251 (1) (A) AND (B) OF THE ACT, LD. CIT(A) HAS THE POWER TO CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL AND ASSESSMENT AND/OR PENALTY. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 246A OF THE ACT, ITS NOT OPEN FOR THE LD. CIT(A) TO DISMISS THE APPEAL IN LIMINE WITHOUT ANY REASONS BEING ASSIGNED ON THE POINTS FROM FOR A DETERMINATION. ACCORDING TO US, THEREFORE, THE DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY LD. CIT(A) IN LIMINE IS INCORRECT BECAUSE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DOES NOT RENDER ANY ASSISTANCE TO US TO APPRECIATE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. 5. IN AS MUCH AS THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A PERSON WITH ASSEMBLED INCOME AND THAT HE HAS NOT BEEN FILING RETURNS REGULARLY AND AN AGRICULTURIST LIVING BY AGRICULTURE AND LIVE STOCK WE FIND THAT IT IS A FIT CASE TO TAKE A LENIENT VIEW AND TO RECEIVE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. WITH THIS VIEW OF THIS MATTER WE ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DISPOSAL AFRESH BY GIVING REASONS, AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. WE MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS A FINAL CHANCE TO PUT FORTH HIS CASE ON MERITS. 4 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING IN VIRTUAL MODE ON THIS THE 22 ND MARCH, 2021. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22 MARCH, 2021 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI