SH. CHHATAR PAL SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 5505/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 December 2016AY 2009-105 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to substantiate their claims, considering the medical reports and the undertaking to cooperate.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) for AY 2009-10. Due to ill health, the assessee could not furnish all the required details during the appeal proceedings, leading to the appeal being decided ex-parte. The assessee later provided an affidavit explaining the circumstances and sought a restoration of the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present evidence before the CIT(A) when the previous proceedings were decided ex-parte due to medical reasons.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC-1”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Yadav, Adv

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr. DR

O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M :

Both the captioned appeals have been preferred by two different assessees. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi, u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) relating to A.Y. 2009-10.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring income of Rs.2,38,568/-. The income had been declared under the head ‘income from business’ as salary and share from partnership firm M/s Satnam Sons u/s 44AF and income from other sources.

After examining the details filed by assessee, the assessment was completed at a total income of Rs.12,30,007/- inter-alia making following two additions :-

(i) Profit from business - Rs.4,17,692/- (para 4 of assessment order) (ii) Peak balance - Rs.5,69,500/- (para 3 of assessment order)

The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal with enhancement inter-alia observing in para 5 that the assessee had failed to file any evidence including his capital accounts appearing in the firms, where he was one of the partners, demonstrating the stated withdrawals from the firms claimed to have been deposited in the Saving Bank Account.

He further observed in para 5.1 that on the scheduled date of hearing on 02.06.2014 as per the enhancement letter, noted at page 9 of his order, assessee sought adjournment; which was granted. However, on the next date of hearing on 01.07.2014 neither any one attended nor sought adjournment. Under such circumstances, he decided the appeal after inferring that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Ld. counsel filed an affidavit of assessee before the Tribunal explaining the circumstances alongwith copies of medical reports. The averments made in the said affidavit are reproduced hereunder :-

“I Chattar Pal Singh S/o Late Mohan Singh R/o H-3, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. 1. That for A.Y. 2009-10, I filed an appeal before CIT (appeals) against the assessment order.

2. That during the appellant proceedings, certain details/information was sought by the CIT (appeals).

3. That due to my adverse health and illness, the details/information sought by the CIT (appeals) could not be compiled completely and thus part compilations could not be furnished during the appellant proceedings.

4. That subsequently the details/information sought by the CIT (appeals) were compiled and duly furnished before CIT (appeals) during the penalty proceedings.

5. That as the details/information sought by the CIT (appeals) having being compiled and duly furnished before CIT (appeals) during the penalty proceedings, I am hopeful of substantial relief in the penalty proceedings.

6. That I do hereby undertake to fully co-operate and fully participate in this regard before Assessing Officer / before CIT (appeals) if the matter is restored back.”

Ld. counsel submitted that the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) so as to provide one more opportunity to assessee to furnish the necessary details.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case along with the affidavit. The assessee has filed the medical reports to substantiate his averments. Under such circumstances, in order to impart substantial justice to assessee, I consider it in the interest of justice to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for providing one more opportunity to assessee to substantiate his claims. In the averments, assessee has clearly undertaken to fully co-operate and fully participate before the Ld. CIT(A). I order accordingly.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No.5781/Del/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10):

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi, u/s 143(3) of the Act relating to A.Y. 2009-10.

In this case, the facts are identical to the case of Chhatar Pal Singh (supra). The same averments have been made in the affidavit filed by wife of Chhatar Pal Singh. Therefore, following the decision in the case of Chhatar Pal Singh in , the matter is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh.

10.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in for Assessment Year 2009-10 is also allowed for statistical purposes.

11.

Resultantly, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 01st day of December, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →