sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 ITO vs. Sudarshan R. Kharbanda (ITAT Mumbai)
 Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Arun Arya Vs. ITO (J&K High Court)
 ITO Ward-27(1), Room No. 119, C.R.Building New Delhi vs. Uncle Nephew Impex Pvt. Ltd. A-1/69, Panchsheel Enclave New Delhi
 ITO, Ward-12(3), Room No. 420-B, 4th Floor,C.R.Building, I.P.Estate New Delhi vs. INS Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd., A-2/452, Sector-8, Rohini
 YKM Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Signature Tower-A, 14th Floor, South City Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-18(4) New Delhi
 Rajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 State Bank Of India vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 The DCIT, Circle-25(2), C.R. Building, New Delhi. vs. M/s. Travel Security Services India Pvt. Ltd., Suite No.605, 606, 6th Floor, Copia Corporate Suites, Plot No.9, Jasola Distt. Centre, New Delhi – 110 025.
 The DCIT, Circle-25(2), C.R. Building, New Delhi. vs. M/s. Travel Security Services India Pvt. Ltd., Suite No.605, 606, 6th Floor, Copia Corporate Suites, Plot No.9, Jasola Distt. Centre, New Delhi – 110 025.
 Komal Singh, R/o. H. No. 36, Shiv Awasiya Colony, Bulandhar, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Bulandshar

Shri. Rajendra Singh, 162, Devi Pura, Bulandshahr, U.P. vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Bulandshahr
October, 09th 2018
                   IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                        Delhi Bench "SMC", New Delhi

                 BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                           I.T.A. No. 3884/Del/2018
                                  A.Y.: 2009-10

           Shri. Rajendra Singh, 162,    Vs.    ITO, Ward-3(3),
           Devi Pura, Bulandshahr,              Bulandshahr
           U.P.


                 [Appellant]                            [Respondent]

                Assessee by:            Sh. Vaibhav Gupta, CA
                Respondent by:          Sh. Surendra Meena, Sr. DR

                Date of Hearing:           04    10    2018
                Date of Pronouncement:     09    10    2018

                                    ORDER
N.K. SAINI, A.M:

            This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28.03.2018
of the learned CIT(A), Ghaziabad. Following grounds have been raised in this
appeal:-
      "1. The Ld. Assessing Officer was erred in taking share of the assessee at
      9.5% instead of 7.5%.

      2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer was erred in making an addition of Rs.
      3,13,170/- on account of unexplained source of investment.

      3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was erred in not
      taking into consideration the order of Ld. Assessing Officer Ward-3(1),
      Bulandshahr who has taken the share of co-partner at the rate of 7.5%.

      4. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Ld.
      Assessing Officer Ward-3(3), Bulandshahr is against law and facts and facts
      of the case and based on surmises and conjecture.
                                                       ITA No. 3884/Del/2018   2






2.          Facts of the case in brief are that the AO on the basis of AIR
information issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the
assessee. In response the assessee filed the return of income on 27.5.2016
declaring an income of Rs. 40,000/-. The AO, however made the addition of Rs.
3,13,170/- by observing that the assessee failed to explain the exact source of
investment and also could not produce any supportive material. Being
aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A) who dismissed
the appeal by passing the ex parte order.

3.          Now the assessee is in appeal.

4.          The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned
CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without providing due and reasonable
opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter may be restored to the
learned CIT(A). In his rival submissions, the learned Sr. DR supported the
impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A).

5.          I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused
the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the
learned CIT(A) mentioned in para 4.1 of the impugned order that the case was
fixed for hearing on 19.3.2018 and the assessee filed adjournment application,
the case was adjourned to 26.3.2018. However, it is not clear as to whether
the said date of hearing was communicated to the assessee. I, therefore, deem
it appropriate to remit this case back to the file of the learned CIT(A) to be
decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the assessee.






6.          In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
                                                                          ITA No. 3884/Del/2018   3

         (Order pronounced in the open court on 09.10.2018.)

                                                                                                  Sd/-
                                                                                        [N.K. SAINI]
                                                                              Accountant Member

DATED: 09.10.2018
SH

Copy forwarded to:-

1.   Appellant
2.   Respondent
3.   CIT
4.   CIT(Appeals)
5.   DR: ITAT

                                                                                  Assistant Registrar
                                                           Date
        1.    Draft dictated on                               4.10.2018   PS
        2.    Draft placed before author                      5.10.2018   PS
        3.    Draft proposed & placed before the second                   JM/AM
              member
        4.    Draft discussed/approved by Second Member.                  JM/AM
        5.    Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS                        PS/PS
        6.    Kept for pronouncement on                                   PS
        7.    File sent to the Bench Clerk                                PS
        8.    Date on which file goes to the AR
        9.    Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
        10.   Date of dispatch of Order.
        11.   Date of uploading                               .10.2018

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Vision

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions