Mr.. Manmeet Singh, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 893/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6606 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 26-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.893/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 MANMEET SINGH, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, E-93, KALKAJI, WARD 22(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. ABIPS5210K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MS. Y. KAKKAR, SR. DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) DATED 9.12.2010 FOR A.Y. 2005-06. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: - THE LD. AO, WARD 22(1), NEW DELHI RECEIVED INFORMA TION THROUGH AIR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 10,24,700/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT DURING F.Y. 2004-2005. AFTER WHICH A NOTICE U/S 14 3(2) WAS ISSUED ON ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH AR OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS. BUT AO WITHOUT GOING INTO THE DEPTHS AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY ADDED THE SAI D SUM TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A )-XXIII, NEW DELHI. BUT THE SAME WAS ALSO DISPOSED OFF BY CIT(A)-XXIII, NEW DELHI WHICH IS TOTALLY UNFAIR AND UNJUSTIFIED. THE ABOVE SAID ADDITIONS MAY PLEASE BE ORDERED TO B E DELETED. ITA NO. 893/DEL/2011 2 THE ASSESSEE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MODIFY, ALTER, A MEND OR/AND ADD GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE. 2. IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 144 VIDE ORDE R DATED 14.12.2007 PASSED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (ACT), WHEREBY THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT RS. 10, 81,558/- AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 56,860/-. AN ADDITION OF RS . 10,24,700/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH INTRODUCED INTO BANK ACCOUNT. THE ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED IN AN APPEAL FILED BEFORE CIT(A) WHO HAS DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF AN EX-PARTE ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMNE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS. THE OBSERVATIONS OF CIT(A) AS CONTAINED IN PARA 4 WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: - (4) IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPEAL OF THE APPELL ANT IS DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PROSECUTION AND NO DECI SION ON MERITS IS BEING GIVEN. 3. THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE US CAME FOR HEARING ON 1 8.4.2011 WHEN ASSESSEES COUNCIL SOUGHT AN ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS GRANTED FOR 26.4.2011 AND THE DATE WAS DULY NOTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF T HE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON 26.4.2011 NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE . HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSES SEE AFTER HEARING LD. DR. ITA NO. 893/DEL/2011 3 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. DR THAT APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DISMISSED BY LD. CIT(A) AS ASSESSEE DID NOT AP PEAR BEFORE HIM DESPITE THE FACT THAT NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESS EE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE AO AND, THEREFO RE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE AO U/S 144. SHE PLEADED THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF L D. DR. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AS WEL L AS CIT(A). IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT THEMIS BIO SYSTEMS LTD. VS. CIT, 74 ITD 339 (AHMD.) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IT IS OBLIGATORY FOR CIT(A) TO P ASS A SPEAKING ORDER STATING POINTS RAISED IN APPEAL, HIS DECISION THERE ON AND REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION. PLENARY JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED ON THE TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF PASSING ORDER U/S 254(1). THERE IS NO SUCH STIPULA TION IN SEC. 250(6). AS SUCH IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR CIT(A) TO DISMISS THE A PPEAL IN LIMNE. THE MANDATE OF THE LAW MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT CIT(A) IS DUTY BOUND TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION W E RESTORE THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAK ING ORDER STATING POINTS RAISED IN THE APPEAL AND HIS DECISION THEREON AND T HE REASON FOR SUCH DECISION AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AS STATED IN AFOREMENTIO NED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. AS WE ARE RESTOR ING THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE A SSESSEE, WE DO NOT ITA NO. 893/DEL/2011 4 EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON MERITS WHICH WILL BE ADJUDIC ATED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PURSUANCE OF DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THIS ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED TO BE ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.04.201 1 SD/- SD/- (K.G. BANSAL) (I.P. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R JUDICIAL MEMBER * KAVITA DATED: COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT