Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU
ORDER These 06 appeals are filed by the separate assessees against the respective Orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon relating to Assessment Year 2014-15 on the following grounds. Since the common issues involved in these appeals, except the difference in figures, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with the facts of (AY 2014-15) – Arjun Dass vs. ITO, Ward-1 and the decision thereof will apply mutatis mutandis to other 05 appeals of the separate assessee, as aforesaid, because the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order on all the appeals. For the sake of convenience, the grounds of (AY 2014-15) are reproduced hereunder:- 1. “That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and, completion of assessment under section 147/143(3) of the Act without appreciating that the same were without jurisdiction and hence deserved to be quashed as such.
1.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there was no specific relevant, reliable and tangible material on record to form a “reason to believe’' that income of the appellant had escaped assessment and in view thereof the proceedings initiated are illegal, untenable and therefore unsustainable. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that reasons recorded mechanically without application of mind do not constitute valid reasons to believe for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. 1.3 That in absence of any valid approval obtained under section 151 of the Act, initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and assessment framed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act are invalid and deserve to be quashed as such.
2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on fact in sustaining an addition of Rs. 4,36,907/- (50% of Rs. 8,73,814) representing interest on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received u/s 28 of Land Compensation Act’ 1894 and eligible for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act. 2.1 That while sustaining the aforesaid addition the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erroneously relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. UOl CWP No. 15506/2013 dated 14.1.2014 reported in 237 Taxman 116 overlooking the following binding judgments of Apex Court: i) 315 ITR 1(SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (dated 16.7.2009) ii) 367 ITR 498(SC) CIT vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya (dated 4.9.2014) iii) C.A. No, 13053/2017 CIT vs. Chet Ram (HUF) (dated 12.9.2017) iv) C.A. No. 15041/2017 UOI vs. Hari Singh and ors. (dated 15.9.2017) 2.2 That while sustaining the aforesaid addition the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the fact that aforesaid compensation is without deduction of TDS which is a part of compensation in view of judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) reported in 315 ITR 1. 2.3 That various adverse findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are factually incorrect and contrary to record, legally misconceived and untenable.. 3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to sustain the impugned addition.
It is therefore, prayed that it be held that assessment made by the learned Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deserves to be quashed as such. It be further held addition made and upheld by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be deleted and appeal of the appellant be allowed.”
Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
During the hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the ex-parte order and that too without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and without observing the principle of natural justice and not passed a speaking order. He further submitted that the issues in dispute are squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT, ‘F’ Bench, New Delhi in (AY 2011-12) vide order dated 31.1.2019 in the case of Smt. Sushma Gupta C/o Vijay Kumar vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Faridabad.
He filed a Paper Book containing pages 1-20 in which he has attached the copy of acknowledgement of return of income alongwith computation of income and statement of income for financial year 2013-14 relevant to assessment year 2014-15; copy of notice u/s. 148 of the Act; copy of reply filed by assessee before AO in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act; copy of reply filed by the assessee from AO alongwith reasons recorded u/s. 147 of the Act; copy of letter to Sh. Raman Kumar S/o L/H Sh. Arjun Dass from Assessing Officer; copy of notice u/s. 142(1)/143(2) of the Act; copy of reply filed by assessee before AO alongwith enclosure and copy of submission filed by assessee before Ld. CIT(A and stated that these documents were on record before the AO and Ld. CIT(A), but the same was not properly considered by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he requested that the issues in dispute may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, as per law after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, after properly considering the documents/evidences filed by the Assessee.
On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has given various opportunities to the assessee, but the assessee remained non-cooperative and as a result thereof, the Ld. CIT(A) has no option but to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. But he has no objection for setting aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh.
I have heard both the parties and perused the records as well as the relevant provisions of law, I am of the view that there is no doubt that assessee remained non-cooperative before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order, without properly considering the documents / evidences filed by the Assessee, which in my opinion, is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and it is an erroneous approach. I further find considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that ITAT, ‘F’ Bench, New Delhi in (AY 2011-12) vide order dated 31.1.2019 in the case of Smt. Sushma Gupta C/o Vijay Kumar vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Faridabad has decided the similar and identical issue in favour of the assessee, which in my opinion, needs to be considered by the Ld. CIT(A), alongwith the documents / evidences filed by the assessee. In this regard, I draw support from Hon’ble Apex Court in the case M/s Sahara India (Farms) Vs. CIT & Anr. in [2008] 300 ITR 403 wherein it has been held that even “an administrative order has to be consistent with the rules of natural justice”.
5.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and in the interest of justice as well as agreed by both the parties, I remit back the issues in dispute to the files of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh adjudication, after properly considering the documents / evidences filed by the assessee and keeping in mind the decision of the ITAT ‘F’ Bench, New Delhi in (AY 2011-12) order dated 31.1.2019 in the case of Smt. Sushma Gupta C/o Vijay Kumar vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Faridabad wherein similar and identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s favour. The assessee is also directed to file all the documents / evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate his case and file all the necessary documents before him and did not take any unnecessary adjournment in the case.
In the result, all the 06 appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.