Pawan Kumar Bansal, New Delhi V. PrCIT, Delhi-19, New Delhi

ITA 996/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3260 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPSHIKHA
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSHAY AGARWAL
• Section: 263; 63; 43

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.996 /DEL/2020 Assessment Year 2014-15 Pawan Kumar Bansal, D-6/21, Sector-15, Rohini, New Delhi. v. Pr.CIT, Delhi. TAN/PAN: AALPB8267D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Akshay Agarwal, CA Respondent by: Ms. Deepshikha, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 21 07 2022 Date of pronouncement: 26 07 2022 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: Th e cap tio n ed ap peal h as b een filed at th e in s tan ce o f th e Assessee ag a in st t h e o rd er o f th e C o mmiss io n er o f In co me T ax (Ap p eals)-XIX, New Delh i [‘CIT(A)’ in sh o rt], d a ted 2 8 .0 3 .20 19 arisin g fro m th e a ssess men t o rd er d ated 2 8 .1 2 .2 01 6 p assed b y the Assessin g Offic er (AO) u n d er Sectio n 1 43 (3 ) o f th e In co me Tax Act, 1 9 6 1 (th e Act ) co n cern in g AY 20 1 4 -1 5 . 2 . Th e g ro u nd s o f ap p eal ra ised b y th e assesse e read s as u n d er: “ 1 . T h e a s s e s s e e c o u l d n o t r e c e i v e p r o p e r o p p o r t u n it y o f b e i n g h e a r d b e f o r e p a s s i n g o f t h e o r d e r u / s 2 6 3 d u e t o n on r e c e i p t o f t h e n o t i c e u / s 2 6 3 i n t i m e . 2 . T h e o r d e r o f L d . P r . C o m m i s s i o n e r o f I n c o m e t ax i s b a d i n l a w I.T.A. No.996/Del/2020 2 a s t h e p r o p e r o p p o r t u n i t y o f b e i n g h e a r d w a s n o t a va i l a b l e a t t h e d i s p o s a l o f t h e a s s e s s e e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h r u l e s of n a t u r a l j u s t i c e . 3 . T h e L d . P r . C I T h a s e r r e d i n l a w a n d f a c t s o f th e c a s e i n r e o p e n i n g t h e c a s e a s n o n e w f a c t o r a n y e n q u i r i e s h a s b e e n r e c o r d e d i n t h e o r d e r p a s s e d u / s 2 6 3 w h i c h c o n c l u d es t h a t t h e a s s e s s m e n t o r d e r p a s s e d u / s 1 4 3 ( 3 ) w a s e r r o n e o u s , wh i c h i s a p r e - r e q u i s i t e c o n d i t i o n t o i n v o k e S e c 2 6 3 . ” 3 . Wh en th e mat ter was cal led fo r h ea rin g , th e ld . co u n sel fo r th e assesse e at th e o u tset su b mi tt ed th at th e sh o w cau se n o tice u n d er Sectio n 2 6 3 o f th e Ac t d a ted 0 9 .0 3 .2 0 19 alleged to h av e b een serv ed o n the assessee was n ev er receiv ed b y the assessee an d th erefo re th e assesse e was p reven ted b y su ffic ien t cau se fo r n o n co mp lian ce o f th e n o tice . It was th u s su b mit te d th at th e Pr.CIT was n o t ju sti fied in ex ercisin g th e p ower und er Sect io n 263 o f th e Act wi th o u t g iv in g an y o pp o rtu n ity to th e assess ee. It was n ex t su b mi tt ed th a t th e ass ess men t o rd er d ated 2 8 .12 .20 1 6 p assed u n d er Sectio n 1 4 3(3 ) o f th e Act fo r Assess men t Year 2 0 1 4 -15 was fra med a fter req u is ite in q u iry relev an t in th e co n tex t an d th erefo re th e al leg at io n o f th e rev is io n al Co mmiss io n er th at su ch assess men t o rd er is erro n eou s in so far as i t is p reju d i cia l to th e in teres t o f th e R ev en u e is mi sco n ceiv ed o n facts and la w. Th e ld . co u n sel th u s ess e n tia lly su b mi tted th at th e i mp u g n ed rev isio n al o rd er is v it ia ted in law an d req u ires t o b e q u ash ed. 4 . Ld . DR fo r th e Re v en u e, o n th e o ther h an d , su b mitt ed th at ju d g men t ren d ered b y th e Hon ’b le Su p reme Co u rt in th e case o f Da n iel Merch a n ts Pvt. Ltd . vs . ITO (Ap p ea l No .2 3 9 6 /20 1 7 ) d a ted 2 9 .1 1 .20 1 7; Ma la ba r Ind u stria l Co . Ltd . vs. CIT (2 00 0 ) 2 4 3 ITR I.T.A. No.996/Del/2020 3 8 3 (S C) an d also r en d ered b y th e Hon ’b le Cal cu tt a Hig h Co urt in th e case o f Ra jma n d ir Esta tes P . Ltd . vs. PCIT (2 0 1 6 ) 3 86 ITR 162 (Ca l . ) h av e h eld t h at in th e ab sen ce o f an y su p p o rting mat eria l p laced an d wi th o ut mak in g an y in q u iry in th e re lev an t issu e th e assess men t o rd er p assed b y th e Asses sin g Officer is su s cep tib l e to rev isio n with in th e sco p e o f Sect io n 2 6 3 o f th e Act. It w as p o in ted o u t th at th e ass ess ee h as mad e larg e d ep o sits an d with d rawals in th e v ic in ity o f Rs .3 0 cro re. Th e d etail s o f wh ich hav e n o t b een in q u ired in tu n e with o rd in ary p rud en ce o f a reaso nab le man . It was th u s su b mi tt e d th at th e rev is io n al co mmiss io n er was h av in g n o o p tio n b u t to inv o k e ju risd ictio n un d er Sectio n 26 3 of th e Act. Th e assessee was h av in g th e op po rtu n ity to d isp el th e cau se o f act io n b y add u cin g ev id en ces an d mak in g ex p lan at io ns. Th e assesse e h as n o t av ailed th e o p p o rtun ity , an d th erefo re , th e act io n o f th e Pr.CIT can n o t b e co n d emn ed i n law. 5 . We h av e carefu ll y co n sid ered th e riv al su b miss ion s. The assesse e h as in ter a lia ch a ll en g ed th e ac tio n o f th e rev isio n al co mmiss io n er o n t h e p lan k o f v io la t io n o f p rin cip l es o f n atu ral ju sti ce. As p er Gro u nd No .1 an d 2 (su pra), th e assessee h as ch all en g ed th e rev isio n al o rd er fo r wan t o f p ro p er opp o rtu n ity o f b ein g h eard an d mi scarri ag e o f n at u ral ju st ic e. We fi n d meri t in th e p lea o f th e ass essee . It is o b served fro m th e rev isi o n al o rd er th at a re feren c e h a s b een mad e to a s o lit ary n o tice to th e ass essee fo r co mp li an ce o f sh o w cau se n o tice issu ed u nd er Sectio n 2 63 o f th e Act. Th e asse ssee h as fa il ed to co mp ly with th e afo resaid n o tice p u rp orted ly o wn in g to n on receip t th ereo f. Th e rev isio n al o rd er was ev en tu ally p assed ex-p a rt e an d th e Assessi n g Offic er was d irec ted to p ass ass ess men t o rd er d en o vo in ter ms o f th e o b serv atio n s mad e in th e o rd er. I.T.A. No.996/Del/2020 4 6 . On a p lain read in g o f Sectio n 2 63 o f th e Act, i t tran sp ires th at th e o p p o rtun ity to th e asses see wh ile p assin g th e rev isio n al o rd er is in b u ilt in th e Sect io n its el f. In th e in stan t cas e , a n o tice h as b een issu ed at th e fag en d o f th e ex p iry o f th e li mi ta tio n p erio d wh ich remain ed u n att en d ed . Th e rev isio n al commis sio n er h as h u rried ly p assed th e rev is io n al o rd er ex-p a rte wi th o u t en su rin g th e p reco n d itio n s o f p ro per o p p o rtun ity enj o in s u n d er Sect io n 2 63 o f th e Act. Th u s, th e p rin cip les o f n atu ra l ju sti ce h as b een clearly v io l ated in th e in s t an t case wh ich cann o t b e co u n ten an ced in la w. 7 . As n o ted earlier , t h e rev isio n al co mmi ssio n er h as p ass ed th e o rd er ex-pa rte with o u t tak in g in to acco u n t th e d efen se o f th e assesse e ag ain s t th e al leg a tio n s rai se d . Th erefo re it is n o t fe asib le fo r th e Tr ib u n al to lo o k in to th e mer its o f th e a lleg at io n s ag ain st th e assesse e in th e ab sen ce o f an y d efen se rai sed on b eh alf o f th e assesse e. It is d iffi cu lt to ap p recia te th e fac tu al ma trix in d ep en d en tly in th e ab sen ce o f an y sp eak in g o rd er on mer its fro m th e rev is io n al co mmi ssio n er so p asse d with o u t tak ing c o g n izan ce o f th e ju st i fi ca tio n in th e ac tio n o f th e Assess in g Office r fro m th e o th er sid e. 8 . In th e to tal i ty o f t h e circu ms tan ces , we co n sid er it ju s t and ex p ed ien t to re sto r e th e mat ter b a ck to th e Pr .CIT in t h e in tere st o f ju s tic e wi th a v iew to en ab l e th e asse ssee to a vail p ro p er o p po rtu n ity to d efen d its case ap p rop riate ly . Hen ce, th e o rd er o f th e rev isio n al co mmis sio n er ap p eal ed ag ain st, i s set asid e an d resto red b ack to the fi le o f th e rev isi o n al Co mmissio n er fo r fresh d etermin at io n o f all i ssu es in acco rd an ce with l aw a ft er g iv in g reaso n ab le o p p o rtun ity o f h earin g to t h e assess ee. I.T.A. No.996/Del/2020 5 9 . In th e resu lt, th e ap p eal o f th e a ssessee is a llo we d fo r sta tis ti ca l p u rp o ses. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 26/07/2022. Sd/- Sd/- [KUL BHARAT] [PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: /07/2022 Prabhat