Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “FRIDAY/F” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI. G.S.PANNU & SHRI KUL BHARAT
ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This bunch of three appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of Ld.CIT(A), Delhi dated 21.11.2019 and 22.07.2019 pertaining to Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2009-10 respectively.
Since the similar grounds have been raised, all appeals of the assessee were taken up for hearing together and are being decided by way of this consolidated order for the sake of brevity.
ITA No.262/Del/2020 [Assessment Year : 2007-08] 2. First we take up the assessee’s appeal in pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
1. “That on the fact and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20 was not justified in addition of income of Rs.3,92,07,350/- as per section 143(3) of the IT, Act, 1961.
2. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20 New Delhi, in order u/s 143(3) of I.T.Act, 1961 is totally wrong, bad in law and needs to be quashed. 3. That the above grounds of appeal
are without prejudice to one another.
4. That the assessee prays permission to add, delete or amend one or more grounds of appeal.” FACTS OF THE CASE
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs.5,28,570/- on 31.10.2007 and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. As per AIR data, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.4,02,79,000/- in various bank accounts. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) completed the assessment at an income of Rs.3,92,07,350/- vide order dated 29.12.2009 on the basis of detailed enquiry and information available with him.
Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, rejected the appeal. The issue was carried to the Tribunal and the Tribunal was pleased to restore the matter to AO for decision afresh. It was directed that the AO decide the issue in the light of the cases of sons of the assessee namely, Shri Anish Kumar Gupta and Shri Ashish Kumar Gupta for Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09.
During the course of remanded assessment proceedings, the assessee had sought adjournment but the Assessing Officer without giving opportunity to the assessee, proceeded to frame the impugned order thereby, he computed the income at Rs.3,91,05,150/- against the declared income of Rs.5,28,570/-.
Aggrieved against this, the assessee had preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) that was dismissed on account of non-appearance of the assessee on the date of hearing.
Now, aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issues in this appeal are covered in favour of the assessee. As in the case of Shri Anish Kumar Gupta and Shri Ashish Kumar Gupta, who are sons of the assessee had got relief from Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 20.02.2020. Therefore, it was submitted that the order may be set aside and assessment be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for decision afresh. Further, he submitted that the authority below did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee and there was no effective representation of the case.
Therefore, he contended that in the interest of principles of natural justice and to sub-serve the interest of substantive justice, the matter may be restored to the assessing authority.
7. On the contrary, Ld.Sr.DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authority below. However, he conceded the fact that the facts were identical as in the case of Shri Anish Kumar Gupta and Shri Ashish Kumar Gupta.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on records and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is seen from the records that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity by the authorities below.
Moreover, in the first round of litigation, the AO was directed to frame the assessment after making inquiry. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee ought to have been given adequate opportunity by the authorities below. Therefore, the assessment is restored to the file of the AO for making assessment afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee and considering the relief granted by Ld.CIT(A) in the case of the Shri Anish Kumar Gupta and Shri Ashish Kumar Gupta. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. [Assessment Year : 2008-09] 10. Now, we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.
263/Del/2020 pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
1. “That on the fact and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20 was not justified in addition of income of Rs.6,05,13,190/- as per section 143(3) of the IT, Act, 1961.
2. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20 New Delhi, in order u/s 143(3) of I.T.Act, 1961 is totally wrong, bad in law and needs to be quashed. 3. That the above grounds of appeal
are without prejudice to one another.
4. That the assessee prays permission to add, delete or amend one or more grounds of appeal.”
11. The facts are identical as were in ITA No.262/Del/2020 pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08. The Ld. Representatives of the parties have adopted the same arguments as were in [Assessment Year 2007-08]. In ITA No.262/Del/2020 [Assessment Year 2007-08], we have restored the issue to the AO by observing as under:-
7. “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is seen from the records that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity by the authority below. Moreover, in the first round of litigation, the AO was directed to frame the assessment after making inquiry. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee ought to have been adequate opportunity by the authority below. Therefore, the assessment is restored to the file of the AO for making assessment afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee and considering the relief granted by Ld.CIT(A) in the case of the Shri Anish Kumar Gupta and Shri Ashish Kumar Gupta. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.”
12. Our direction in [Assessment Year 2007-08] would apply Mutatis Mutandi in this year as well. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Now, we take up the assessee’s appeal in pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
1. “That on the fact and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38 was not justified in addition of income of Rs.76,02,010/- as per section 143(3) of the IT, Act, 1961.
That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38 New Delhi, in order u/s 143(3) of I.T.Act, 1961 is totally wrong, bad in law and needs to be quashed. 3. That the above grounds of appeal
are without prejudice to one another.
4. That the assessee prays permission to add, delete or amend one or more grounds of appeal.”
The facts are identical as were in pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08. The Ld. Representatives of the parties have adopted the same arguments as were in ITA No.262/Del/2020 [Assessment Year 2007-08]. In ITA No.262/Del/2020 [Assessment Year 2007-08], we have restored the issue to the AO by observing as under:-
“We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is seen from the records that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity by the authority below. Moreover, in the first round of litigation, the AO was directed to frame the assessment after making inquiry. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee ought to have been adequate opportunity by the authority below. Therefore, the assessment is restored to the file of the AO for making assessment afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee and considering the relief granted by Ld.CIT(A) in the case of the Shri Anish Kumar Gupta and Shri Ashish Kumar Gupta. Thus, grounds raised
by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.”
16. Our direction in [Assessment Year 2007-08] would apply Mutatis Mutandi in this year as well. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the final result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 18.02.2022.