PARDEEP JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD -37(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3315/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 February 2020AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the issues in dispute require thorough consideration at the CIT(A)'s level.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT, and the appeal was decided ex-parte qua assessee after hearing the Revenue. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee before passing an ex-parte order. Whether the addition made by the AO treating deposited amount as undisclosed income was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals-13], New Delhi dated 21.02.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO without application of mind passed the assessment order in question and without appreciating the documents filed in support of its case, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the same.

2. That no statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 having been issued, the proceedings under the Act and consequent framing of order u/s. 147 and 143(3) is bad in law and non-est. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in treating the amount of Rs. 11,77,600/- deposited by the assessee as undisclosed income, whereas the same was reported in the return of income for the assessment year in question and Ld.

CIT(A) was failed to consider the same and upheld the findings of the AO.

4. That the Ld. AO erred in holding that the appellant had received an amount of Rs. 11,77,600/- other than the receipts shown in the return of income for the assessment year in question and treating the same u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite of discharging the onus by the assessee by providing his return of income for the assessment year in question and Ld. CIT(A) also erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 11,77,600/-.

5.

That the observations of the AO are based on surmises and conjectures and are neither supported with any evidence, if any, collected by Department nor verification of the information and application of mind. The AO also failed to appreciate that the assessee had provided his return of income during the course proceedings and discharged hi onus. Further the AO failed to consider return of income filed by the assessee declaring income to the tune of Rs. 2,40,92 on receipts of Rs. 21,40,248/- apart from the contract works and the additions made by the AO were part of the receipts shown under the return of income for the assessment year in question.

6. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate, that the asessee has duly filed the Evidence in support of his case.

7.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the above grounds during the pendency of the appeal.

2.

Assessee has filed the present appeal on 16.04.2019 which was fixed before the Bench for today i.e. 11.02.2020 by issuing RPAD notice on the address given by the assessee. But in spite of the same, assessee, nor his authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, I am deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.

3.

Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below especially the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that assessee remained non-cooperative before the revenue authorities, therefore, no lenient view should be taken in favour of the assessee.

4.

I have gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities and perused the contention raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal especially the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). I find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. I also find that Ld. CIT(A) has also issued notice by email three times to the assessee. But in response to the same, assessee appeared only one time before the Ld. CIT(A). But in my considered view and in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute require thorough consideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, as per law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I hold and directly accordingly.

5. No doubt that assessee remained non-cooperative before the revenue authorities, but keeping in view of the facts of the present case and non-cooperation of the assessee, I am directing the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 23.04.2020 at 10.00 AM for hearing.

6.

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →