Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi, dated 26.11.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
Aradhana Tewari Vs. DCIT “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Id. AO and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the facts of the case and thereby natural justice has been denied to the appellant.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Id. CIT(A) has erred in the not admitting the additional evidences filed along with justification by the appellant, on account of technical grounds under rule 46A of the Rules and thereby passing the ex-parte order.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Id. AO has erred in the not accepting and considering the replies filed by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Id.AO has erred in making assessment u/s 144 of the Act and Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same, without even considering the documents on records and that is not a best judgment assessment as envisaged u/s 144 of the Act 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Id.AO has erred in making addition of entire deposits of Rs. 1802531 in saving bank accounts as unexplained bank deposit, though the same was out of disclosed sources and Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same.
On the facts and circumstances of the case the Id.AO has erred in making disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80C of the Act of Rs. 69,400 and id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same.
7. That the appellant craves leave to raise additional grounds of appeal, to alter/modify and to withdraw any of the grounds of appeal, either prior to or during the course of appellant proceedings.”
Facts, in brief, are that a search and seizure action was carried out at the premises of M/s Century Communication Group on 11.03.2011. The assessee was also covered u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”. The case of the assessee was taken up for assessment u/s 153A of the Act.
However, in response to the notice there was no effective representation from the Aradhana Tewari Vs. DCIT assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 18,02,531/- on account of unexplained bank deposit and Rs. 69,400/- on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80C of the Act. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), who also dismissed the appeal. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
At the outset it is seen that the assessee has filed copy of order of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of the assessee pertaining to the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09 in to 5667/Del/2017, wherein the Tribunal has set aside the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals) by observing as under:
“6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Under the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, it is incumbent upon the CIT(A) to decide the appeals after hearing the parties and state the points for determination, the decision thereon and also the reasons for the decision. While deciding the appeals, CIT(A) has no power to dismiss the appeal for non prosecution by relying on the ratio/s laid down in CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya 85 Another 118 ITR 461 (SC) and Late Tukoji Rao Holker vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP). In these facts and circumstances, where the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal by applying the above said ratios, the order of the learned CIT(A) suffers from infirmity. The CIT(A) while deciding the issue on merits have also to provide reasons for coming to the conclusion and in the into the complaints before the CBI. The CBI also started investigating the facts from the directors and staff members of those companies. Due to this Shri P.K Tewari, father in law of the assessee was jailed from July 12 to October 2012 and September 14 to March 15. Due to this the assessee could not obtain the basic record to submit before the lower authorities. Even the Id AR also did not submit the proper detail which resulted into passing of that order. Due to this, ex parte orders were passed by the lower authorities.
Aradhana Tewari Vs. DCIT Even otherwise, it was submitted that the orders passed by the lower authorities were without adequate information obtained from the bank etc. In view of the above extraordinary circumstance, which was not denied by the revenue, assessee failed to comply with the notices before the lower authorities. On careful consideration of the above facts, it is apparent that the extraordinary circumstances prevented the assessee from submitting the information before the lower authorities. Thus, though adequate opportunities were provided, they are fruitless, in view of inability of the assessee to submit the details before the revenue authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we once again provide another opportunity to the assessee to submit the complete details before the lower authorities. Accordingly, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is set aside with a direction to assessee to comply with the notices and furnish necessary information. The Id AO may consider the same and after giving opportunity of hearing decide the issue afresh on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is allowed with above direction for statistical purposes.
Identical fact exists for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the similar reasons we also set aside these appeals back to the file of the Id AO with similar direction to the assessee.”
In the present case also the appeal is dismissed on the basis that the assessee failed to provide the relevant documents even after adequate opportunities were provided during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, considering the totality of facts, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Divisin Bench in the assessee’s own case in to 5667/Del/2017 for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09 (supra), the appeal of the assessee for the present year also stands restored to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals). The impugned order is Aradhana Tewari Vs. DCIT hereby set aside and the matter is restored to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) to decide the same afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 20th April, 2022.