Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-1’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI O.P. KANT
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-1’ NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing]
ITA No.2513/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16
Sh. Manish Pengoriya, Vs. ITO, A-3-607, Tower-4, Silver Ward-2(2), City, Sector-93, Noida Noida. PAN :AIOPP5974E (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Sh. Pratap Gupta, CA Respondent by Sh. R.K. Gupta, Sr.DR
Date of hearing 30.06.2021 Date of pronouncement 09.07.2021
ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 29/09/2018 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida [in short ‘the Learned CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16 raising following grounds: 1. That Ld. CIT (Appeals)-I, Noida has passed the order u/s 250 without providing proper opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice as appellant did not receive any notice for date of hearing at his given address. Further, appellant specifically opted to receive the notice over Email ID in
2 ITA No.2513/Del/2019
form 35 for hearing however, no such notice has been received on Email ID either because of which appellant was restricted by sufficient cause to represent his case, hence order passed by Ld. CIT (Appeal) is liable to be quashed. 2. Ld. AO has erred in passing the assessment order without referring and providing the statement of brokers who has confessed that the scrip’s of M/s HPC Bioscience Limited has been utilized as a tool to provide the accommodation entries and whether the appellant’s name was present in the same or not. In absence of such vital verification, the assessment made is absolute bad-in-law and devoid of merits, hence liable to be quashed. 3. Ld. AO has erred in law while making the addition without giving reasons for rejecting the submissions and documentary evidences of the appellant and without passing the speaking order as per the requirement of law, hence the assessment made is against the principle of natural justice. The assessment order is illegal and unlawful. 4. Ld. AO has erred in law while making the addition without having any incriminating material / evidence in hand which form basis that appellant has taken accommodation entries and the transaction of Long Term Capital Gain is Bogus. Without having any such information and addition made merely on presumptions and summarises is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in completing the assessment on the basis of satisfaction borrowed only from report of Investigation wing with pre-conceive mind which is bad-in-law and therefore addition made is liable to be deleted. 6. That the Appellant craves to leave to add / alter any / all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that return of income filed by the assessee on 31/08/2015 for the year under consideration declaring income of ₹ 9,96,640/- was selected for scrutiny assessment. The scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was completed on 26/12/2017 after making addition of ₹ 21,02,194/- to the returned income. The assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A), however, the appeal of the assessee was not admitted by the Learned CIT(A) on the ground that no evidence of
3 ITA No.2513/Del/2019
payment of Challan for appeal fee and other documents were filed before him. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Both the parties appeared before us through Video Conferencing facility and filed documents electronically. 4. The learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that challan for fee u/s 249(1)(a) of the Act was duly filed before the Learned CIT(A) along with the impugned penalty order and copy of demand notice, however, he has ignored the same and rejected the appeal of the assessee. He has drawn our attention to the copy of challan of fee filed before us and submitted that matter may be restored back to the Learned CIT(A) for admitting the appeal and decide the issue on merit. 5. The Learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) but did not object for restoring the matter back to him for verification of challan of fee and thereafter for determination of issue in dispute. 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue dispute. The Learned CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non-filing of challan of fee as required under section 249(1)(a) of the Act. Before us, the learned Counsel of the assessee, however, has filed copy of the challan of fee dated 27/01/2018. In view of fee already deposited, the assessee cannot be treated in default of section 249(1)(a) of the Act. In view of these facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of the Learned CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him for verification of the copy of challan fee with Income-Tax Department records
4 ITA No.2513/Del/2019
and if same is verified, then he shall decide the issue in dispute in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Accordingly, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 9th July, 2021
Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 9th July, 2021. RK/-(DTDS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi