GAJRAJ SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD- 37(3), NEW DELHI

ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-13, New Delhi dated 13.09.2019.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. “That the honorable CIT(A)-13 has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,83,060.00 on illegal and untenable grounds. Hence, the addition as such may be deleted.

2. That the honorable CIT(A)-13 has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,83,060.00 without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Hence, the addition as such may be deleted. 3. That the honorable CIT(A)-13 has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25, 83,060.00 ex parte and ex merits on illegal and untenable grounds. Hence, the addition as such may be deleted.

4. That the honorable CIT(A)-13 has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the reopening u/s 147 ignoring the fact that reason recorded by Ld AO are mechanical in nature and without application of mind and hence, the assessment, as such, may be quashed.

5. That the honorable CIT(A)-13has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the assessment ignoring the fact That approval under section 151 by PCIT-13 is mechanical in nature and hence, the assessment as such may be quashed. 6. That the honorable CIT(A)-13 has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,83,060.00 under section 69A on illegal and untenable grounds. Hence, the addition as such may be deleted. 7. That the honorable CIT(A)-13 has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the interest of Rs. 11,78,983.00 under section 234A and 234B on illegal and untenable grounds. Hence, the addition as such may be deleted 8. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify, substitute or delete any grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. Further, all the above grounds of appeal are independent of each other.”

2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to represent its case by Ld.CIT(A). He submitted that in the interest of principle of natural justice, opportunity may be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld.CIT(A). He further undertook that no adjournment would be sought without a reasonable cause.

3. Per contra, Ld.Sr.DR vehemently opposed these submissions and supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee has been thoroughly negligent and no inference is called for, under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that Ld.CIT(A) in para 4.1 has provided various opportunities to the assessee, stated as under:-

4.1. “Details of opportunity given during appellate proceedings is given in the table below:-

Date of Date of Mode Remark S. No. Issue Hearing 1. 19.07.2019 30.07.2019 By e-mail None attended but adjournment & Speed application filed on 30.07.2019 Post through e-mail. 2. 31.07.2019 13.08.2019 Bye-mail Adjournment sought through e- & Speed mail Post 3. 02.08.2019 20.08.2019 Bye-mail Adjournment sought through e- & Speed mail Post 4. Adjournment application filed - - - through e-mail dated 20.08.2019, the case adjourned for 05.09.2019

5. This demonstrates that the assessee was not serious in attending the proceedings. However, considering the interest of principle of natural justice, I deem it proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the same to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide it afresh after giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing in the presence of both the parties on 09th November, 2021.