IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: `SMC' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 1636/Del/2019
Assessment Year: 2010-11
NEERAJ GARG, VS. ITO, WARD 34(4)
C-25, SHAKTI NAGAR EXTN., NEW DELHI
NEW DELHI 110 052
(PAN: AERPG7111H)
(ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT)
Assessee by: Sh. Ridhi Karan Aggarwal, CA
Revenue by: Ms. Ekta Vishnoi, Sr. DR.
ORDER
This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 26.10.2018
passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year
2010-11 on the following grounds:-
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the
reassessment proceedings concluded by the AO under
section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and confirmed by
the CIT(A) is without supplying the reasons for initiating
the proceedings and hence, bad in law and void ab initio.
2. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming
the addition made by the AO aggregating Rs. 11,88,200/-
for AY 2010-11 vide order dated 22.12.2017 passed under
section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, without giving
adequate opportunity to the appellant to make
submissions.
2.1 That the CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by upholding
the order of AO which was passed against the principle
of natural justice and hence, void.
2.2 That the CIT(A) has erred in not making any
independent enquiry or asking for the received reports
for verification of facts, when he has got wide powers.
2
3. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by upholding the
exparte order passed by the AO.
4. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not allowing
the appellant to produce the relevant supporting
documents when the appellant has documents to
substantiate that sources of alleged cash deposit
aggregating Rs. 11,88,200/- was out of the business
proceeds.
5. That the AO erred on facts and in law in charging interest
under section 234B of the Act.
6. That the AO has erred in law and facts initiating the
penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).
7. That the appellant craves, leaves to add, amend, and
delete any other grounds of appeal.
2. 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.
3. During the hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that Ld.
CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee for
substantiating the claim to the assessee and passed the exparte order
without hearing the assessee. He further stated that assessee is having
all the necessary evidences for substantiating the claim of the assesee.
Hence, 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.
4. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the revenue
authorities.
5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records especially
the orders of the revenue. No doubt that the assessee remained non-
cooperative before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. Counsel for the assessee
undertakes to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and will cooperate in speedy
3
disposal of the appeal as well as not seek any unnecessary adjournment
before the Ld. CIT(A). In the interest of justice, I set aside the issues in
dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing on 13.01.2020 at
10.00 AM with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving
adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is made clear
that no notice for hearing will be issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Assessee is
also directed through its Counsel to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on
13.01.2020 at 10.00 AM for hearing to substantiate its case and did
not take any unnecessary adjournment in the case.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for
statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 03/10/2019.
Sd/-
[H.S. SIDHU]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date 03/10/2019
"SRB"
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant -
2. Respondent -
3. CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY
By Order,
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches
4
|