Rohit Dhupar, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 28(1), New Delhi

ITA 9684/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3356 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Set aside
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI SMC-2 BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.9684/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17 ROHIT DHUPAR, D-942, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI-110065. PAN-AAFPD5114P VS ITO, WARD-28(1) NEW DELHI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SH. AMIT KAUSHIK, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SH. R.K.GUPTA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 25.05.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14 .0 6 .2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2016-17 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-10, NE W DELHI DATED 24.10.2019. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT THE CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS 12,22,301/- TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS 12,22,301/- TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY DISMISSING THE APPEA L IN-LIMINE. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) AS WELL THE LD. AO GROSSLY ERRE D IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING A N ADDITION OF RS. 12,22,301/- WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NAT URAL JUSTICE. ITA NO.9684/DEL/2019 2 | P A GE 4. THAT THE CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.12,22,301/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE LD. AO HAD T AKEN THE VALUATION OF PURCHASES ON WHICH THE CUSTOMS DUTY WAS PAYABLE AS THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL PURCHASE. 5. THAT THE CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 10,97,554/- TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED EXPENSES. 6. THAT THE CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW PND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,22,747/- TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 7. THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN I NITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 8. THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C .OF THE ACT. 9. THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, V ARY, OMIT OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL A T ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 10. THAT ALL THE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 2. FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE E-FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ON 20.09.2016 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.8,28,250/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED S CRUTINY. ACCORDINGLY, STATUTORY NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASS ESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TOTAL IMPORTS FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,19,006/- WHERE IN AS PER DATA AVAILABLE ON PORTAL, THERE WAS AN IMPORT FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.23, 16,560/-. HENCE, THE ITA NO.9684/DEL/2019 3 | P A GE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AND RECONCILE THE DI FFERENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING, NEITHER ANY ONE APPEARED NOR ANY REPLY WAS FILED. THE ASSESSING OF FICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,22,747/- AND RS.10,97,554/- IN RESPECT OF BUSI NESS INCOME, NOT OFFERED FOR TAX AND UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES FOR PURCHASES RESP ECTIVELY. 3. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED A PPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS SUSTAINED EX-PARTE AND THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. 4. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY AND IN THE INTERES T OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, HE MAY BE GIVEN ATLEAST ONE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AFTER VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NAT URAL JUSTICE, ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN SUSTAINED THEREBY, T HE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFERED GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. SR. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS BEEN NEGLIGENT THROUGHOUT. HE HIMSELF CHOSE NOT TO REPL Y TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE FURTHER DID NOT ATTEND THE P ROCEEDINGS DESPITE HAVING BEEN ISSUED NOTICE BY LD.CIT(A). 7. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE NOTICES WERE SENT ON 0 1.05.2019, 12.06.2019 AND ITA NO.9684/DEL/2019 4 | P A GE 20.09.2019 THROUGH EMAIL, HOWEVER, NO ONE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS. IT IS CONTENDED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTICE SENT THROUGH EMAIL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THE LAST OPPORTUNITY BE GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, I DEEM IT PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THE INTEREST OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND RESTORE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL T O LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH AND THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO APPE AR BEFORE LD.CIT(A) AS AND WHEN, SO DIRECTED. THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER DIRECTE D NOT TO SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE RELATED TO ANY MEDICAL EMERGENCY ETC. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ABOVE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED ON CONCLUSION OF VIR TUAL HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES ON 14 TH JUNE, 2021. SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER * AMIT KUMAR * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI