Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU
ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2009-10 on the following grounds:-
1. That, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147 as the conditions laid down u/s 147 to 151 were not complied with.
2. That, the assessment order passed by Ld. AO is illegal as the same was passed without serving the notice u/s 143(2) as per law. 3. That, on the facts and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not admitting the appeal of assessee and that too without considering the factual position of the assessee and erred in not condoning the delay as the reason for the same has been explained in the petition filed along with Form-35. 4.That, Ld. CIT(A) erred on both in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal and that too without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. That, Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.9,94,670/- in the impugned assessment order and that too in hasty manner and without application of mind and on the basis of pre-conceived notion.
6. That, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in affirming the orders passed by the Ld. AO, where in Ld. A.O. has given contradictory finding about the case, At the first instance Ld. A.O . alleges that the Appellant is into the business of providing accommodation entries, which in itself explains that the cash deposited in the bank , which is added to the income of the Appellant doesn't pertain to him rather it should be part of income of the transferor and not the transferee i.e. the Appellant. On the other hand Ld, CIT Appeals has made the addition in the income of the Appellant treating it as Income from undisclosed sources.
7. That, Ld. A.O. has erred in facts and law as well, in confirming the orders of the Ld AO. That too when the orders has been passed without referring to any specific provision of law/ specific section, which has been not adhered by the Appellant.
8. That, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not passing the orders of the Appellant till date as the impugned orders in appeal , are passed against the person holding pan number AAHPG7391M instead of the Appellant holding pan number AAFPC7351R.Thus it seems, that orders in the case of Appellant are still lying unpassed with the Ld CIT Appeals himself.
9. That, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not providing adequate opportunity to / substantiate and submit’ existing and the additional evidences, to prove the proper source of cash, deposited in the bank during the year.
10. That, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the orders assesseed income of Rs. 85,880/- instead of Rs. 10,80,680/-, which shows that the orders has been passed in the biased manner with wrong figures mentioned therein, or this order pertains to the person having pan number AAHPG7391M.
11. That, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the orders of the Ld AO, in the circumstances when Ld AO has not been able to prove, any other corroborative evidence about the cash generation or any other undisclosed source of income.”
At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee stated that learned First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of 17 days delay. He stated that assessee has filed an application for condonation, but the learned First Appellate Authority has not condoned the delay. He requested that 17 days delay may be condoned and issues in dispute may be set aside to the learned First Appellate Authority to decide the same fresh, as per law, after giving the opportunity to the assessee. On the contrary, learned DR has not raised any serious objection on the request of the learned counsel for the assessee.
I have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities especially the impugned order and I find that learned First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 17 days as well as on merit also. Learned counsel for the assessee has filed a submission on the issue of condonation of delay which I have read and I am of considered view that in the interest of justice, 17 days delay should be condoned and the issues in dispute to be set aside to the learned First Appellate Authority to decide the same afresh as per law, after giving opportunity to the assessee.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I condone the delay of 17 days and set aside the issues in dispute to the learned First Appellate Authority to decide the issues afresh, as per law, after giving full opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 06/01/2020.