VITT EVAM LEKHA ADHIKARI,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO (TDS), MUZAFFARNAGAR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5805/Del/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) ITA No.5806/Del/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) ITA No.5807/Del/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) ITA No.5808/Del/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10)
M/s Vitt Evam Lekha Income Tax Officer Adhikari, Basic Shiksha, Vs. (TDS), Muzaffarnagar. Chakrota Road, Saharanpur. PAN-MRTV0 0574A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent by Sh. Toufel Tahir, Sr. DR
ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) All these four appeals by Assessee have been filed against
the consolidated orders dated 28.06.2018 of Learned
Page 1 of 9
ITA No.5805 to 5808 /Del/2018 Vitt Evam Lekha Adhikari vs. ITO
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar [Ld. CIT(A)”,
for short], for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10. Grounds
taken in these appeals of Assessee are as under:
ITA No.5805/Del/2018 for Asst. Year 2006-07
“1. That the order U/s 201(1)/201(1 A) passed by the AO is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. The CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant as not maintainable, which is illegal, bad in law and against the provision of the Act.
That, the assessing officer has erred on facts and in law, while giving the appeal effect and treating the assessee appellant as assessee in default and creating a liability TDS at Rs.9,766.00 and Interest at Rs.6,299.00 U/s 201 (1A) of the Act, in complete defiance of the order passed by the CIT (A). The CIT (A) erred in upholding the same.
That, the additions made and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjunctures. The additions made cannot be justified by any material on record.
That, the explanation given evidence produced, material placed and available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the additions/allowances made.
That, the impugned assessment order passed by the assessing officer and order passed by CIT (A) are against the principles of natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard.
That, the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and or modify the grounds of appeal of the said appeal.
All of the above grounds of appeal arc without prejudice and arc mutually exclusive to each other.”
Page 2 of 9
ITA No.5805 to 5808 /Del/2018 Vitt Evam Lekha Adhikari vs. ITO
ITA No.5806/Del/2018 for Asst. Year 2007-08
“1. That the order U/s 201(1)/201(1 A) passed by the AO is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. The CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant as not maintainable, which is illegal, bad in law and against the provision of the Act.
That, the assessing officer has erred on facts and in law, while giving the appeal effect and treating the assessee appellant as asscssee in default and creating a liability TDS at Rs.52,752.00 and Interest at Rs.27,694.00 U/s 201 (1 A) of the Act, in complete defiance of the order passed by the CIT (A). The CIT (A) erred in upholding the same.
That, the additions made and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjunctures. The additions made cannot be justified by any material on record.
That, the explanation given evidence produced, material placed and available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the additions/allowances made.
That, the impugned assessment order passed by the assessing officer and order passed by CIT (A) are against the principles of natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard.
That, the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and or modify the grounds of appeal of the said appeal.
All of the above grounds of appeal arc without prejudice and are mutually exclusive to each other.”
ITA No.5807/Del/2018 for Asst. Year 2008-09
“1. That the order U/s 201 (1 )/201(1 A) passed by the AO is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. The GIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant as not maintainable, which is illegal, bad in law and against the provision of the Act.
Page 3 of 9
ITA No.5805 to 5808 /Del/2018 Vitt Evam Lekha Adhikari vs. ITO
That, the assessing officer has erred on facts and in law, while giving the appeal effect and treating the assessee appellant as asscssee m default and creating a liability IDS at Rs.68,251.00 and Interest at Rs.27,641.00 U/s 201 (1 A) of the Act, in complete defiance of the order passed by the ClT (A). The Cff (A) erred in upholding the same.
That, the additions made and the observations made arc unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjunctures. The additions made cannot be justified by any material on record.
That, the explanation given evidence produced, material placed and available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the additions/allowances made.
That, the impugned assessment order passed by the assessing officer and order passed by CIT (A) are against the principles of natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard.
That, the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and or modify the grounds of appeal of the said appeal.
All of the above grounds of appeal arc without prejudice and are mutually exclusive to each other.”
ITA No.5808/Del/2018 for Asst. Year 2009-10
“1. That the order U/s 201(1)/201(1A) passed by the AO is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. The CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant as not maintainable, which is illegal, bad in law and against the provision of the Act.
That, the assessing officer has erred on facts and in law, while giving the appeal effect and treating the assessee appellant as asscsscc in default and creating a liability TDS at Rs.1,13,793.00 and Interest at Rs.32,431.00 U/s 201 (1 A) of the Act, in complete defiance of the order passed by the CIT (A). The CIT (A) erred in upholding the same.
Page 4 of 9
ITA No.5805 to 5808 /Del/2018 Vitt Evam Lekha Adhikari vs. ITO 3. That, the additions made and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjunctures. The additions made cannot be justified by any material on record.
That, the explanation given evidence produced, material placed and available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the additions/allowances made. 5. That, the impugned assessment order passed by the assessing officer and order passed by CIT (A) are against the principles of natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. That, the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and or modify the grounds of appeal of the said appeal.
All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and arc mutually exclusive to each other.”
(B) The grounds of appeal in these four appeals are similarly
worded and serialized. Further, the issues raised are common.
Therefore, for the sake of convenience, all the four appeals are
hereby disposed off by this consolidated order.
(C) Perusal of records in these appeals shows that order(s)
dated 25.03.2011 were passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of IT Act, 1961
by the Assessing Officer (“AO” for short) for Assessment Years 2005-
06 to 2009-10. The assessee filed appeal(s) before the Ld. CIT(A).
Vide appellate order dated 22.12.2011, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the
assessee’s appeals. Consequential order was passed (consolidated Page 5 of 9
ITA No.5805 to 5808 /Del/2018 Vitt Evam Lekha Adhikari vs. ITO dated 19.03.2014) by the AO for the aforesaid years (Assessment
Year 2005-06 to 2009-10). The assessee’s appeal(s) against the
consolidated order dated 19.03.3014 were dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)
vide impugned consolidated order dated 28.06.2018 by Ld. CIT(A).
In the mean time, ITAT passed consolidated order dated 31.01.2008
whereby aforesaid consolidated order dated 03.11.2015 was set
aside, directing the Ld. CIT(A) to pass fresh order(s).
(C.1) The present four appeals before us have been filed by
the assessee, against the aforesaid impugned consolidated order
dated 28.06.2018 of Ld. CIT(A). In the present appeals before us, in
ground No.2, the assessee has contended that the aforesaid order
dated 19.03.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer was in complete
defiance of the (aforesaid order dated 22.12.2011) of the Ld. CIT(A).
In ground No.5 of the appeals before us, the assessee has also
contended that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the
Ld. CIT(A) are against the principles of natural justice and that the
orders have been passed without affording reasonable and adequate
opportunity of being heard.
Page 6 of 9
ITA No.5805 to 5808 /Del/2018 Vitt Evam Lekha Adhikari vs. ITO (C.2) On perusal of our records, we find that aforesaid orders
dated 25.03.2011 passed by the AO); order dated 03.11.2015
passed by Ld. CIT(A) and order dated 31.01.2018 passed by ITAT
are not available on records.
(D) At the time of hearing before us, there was no
representation from the side of the appellant assessee. In the
absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, we heard
the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR” for short) for
Revenue. In respect of Grounds No.2 & 5 of the appeals before us,
the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the impugned consolidated order
dated 28.06.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and the issue
in dispute in grounds No.2 of these appeals may be restored to the
file of the Assessing Officer, for fresh order(s) in accordance with
law, with the direction to give due consideration to order dated
22.12.2011 of Ld. CIT(A).
(D.1) In view of the foregoing, in the specific facts and
circumstances of the case, and as the Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue has
made submissions similar to this effect at the time of hearing before
Page 7 of 9
ITA No.5805 to 5808 /Del/2018 Vitt Evam Lekha Adhikari vs. ITO us, we set aside the impugned consolidated appellate order dated
28.06.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A) and we restore the issues in ground
No.2 of these appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer with the
direction to pass fresh order(s) in accordance with law. We also
direct the Assessing Officer to give due consideration to earlier
orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) and ITAT. The Assessing Officer is
further directed to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee
before passing fresh order(s).
(D.2) All the grounds of appeal in these four appeals before
us, are treated as disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid
directions; and separate adjudication of each ground of appeal in
these four appeals before us is not necessary.
(D.2.1) In the result, all these four appeals by the assessee
are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Our order was already pronounced orally on
26.05.2022 in Open Court, in the presence of Sr. DR for Revenue,
Page 8 of 9
ITA No.5805 to 5808 /Del/2018 Vitt Evam Lekha Adhikari vs. ITO after conclusion of the hearing. This written order is now signed
today on 30/05/2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SAKTIJIT DEY) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 30/05/2022 Pk/R.N
