Tarun Kumar Sahay, B- 19/1, Shyam Vihar, Phase-II Near Mata Mandir, Gola Diary Road, Nazafgarh New Delhi Vs. ITO Ward 24(2),
March, 16th 2015
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN
(DELHI BENCH "H" NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT
SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA NO. 2025/DEL/2013
(Assessment Year : 2006-07)
Tarun Kumar Sahay, Vs. ITO
B- 19/1, Shyam Vihar, Phase-II Ward 24(2),
Near Mata Mandir, Gola
Diary Road, Nazafgarh
New Delhi New Delhi
ASSESSEE BY : Sh. Arun Garg, CA.
REVENUE BY : Sh. J.P.Chandrakar, Sr. DR.
Date of Hearing : 12.03.2015
Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2015
PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XXIII, New Delhi dated
23.01.2013 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2006-07.
2 In I.T.A. No. 2025/Del/2013
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeals :-
1. " On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the
order passed by CIT(A) is bad-in-law.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the
CIT(A) erred in passing the order ex-parte.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the
order passed by the CIT(A) is against the principle of natural
justice. The roder passed is without providing proper
opportunity to the assessee.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the
addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- made by the assessing officer as
income from other sources on account of alleged
unexplained cash deposited / gift received is erroneous and
the CIT(A) should have delted the same.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the
addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- made by the assessing officer on
account of loan received from Abdul Ahmed Siddiqui is
erroneous and CIT(A) should have deleted the same.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the
addition of Rs. 144370/- made by the assessing officer on
account of disallowance of expenses is erroneous and
CIT(A) should have deleted the same."
3. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was
picked up for the scrutiny assessment and the assessment under
Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred
to as the Act) was framed. Thereby the Assessing Officer made
various additions on account of unexplained cash deposit,
addition on account of loan received from Abdul Ahmed Siddiqui
3 In I.T.A. No. 2025/Del/2013
Amounting of Rs. 4,00,000/- addition on account of disallowance of
expenses amounting of Rs. 1,44,370/-. Hence, the Assessing Officer
assessed income at Rs. 19,37,470/- against the return income of Rs.
4,93,100/-. Against this, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld.
CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal by applying the decision of this
Tribunal rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Multi Plan India Pvt. Ltd. 38
ITD 320 Delhi for want of prosecution. The assessee feeling
aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) has filed the present appeal.
4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was
not justified in dismissing appeal without giving the assessee further
opportunity of hearing. He submitted that in the interest of principle of
natural justice the assessee may be afforded another opportunity of
hearing. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR on behalf of the Revenue
opposed the submission and submitted that Ld. CIT(A) afforded
sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee
cannot be allowed to take benefit of its own wrong.
4 In I.T.A. No. 2025/Del/2013
5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material
available on record, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal
of the assessee by observing as under :-
" 3. The case of the appellant was fixed for hearing on
22.5.2012 vide notice u/s 250 dated 09.05.2012. The
envelope containing the notice was returned to this office
on 15.05.2012 with the endorsement of the postal
authorities as "no such person." On 23.08.2012, the
appellant filed a letter intimating the change of address. On
13.12.2012, a notice has been issued fixing the case for
hearing on 19.12.2012 at the new address, in response to
which, an adjournment application was filed. The case was
adjourned to 04.01.2013, on which date no one attended.
By notice dated 14.01.2013, the case was re-fixed for
22.01.2013. On this date also no one has attended the
proceedings nor has any application for adjournment been
filed. No written submissions have been made in support of
6. After considering totality of the facts, we are of the
considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given another
opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to subserve the
interest of principles of natural justice we hereby set aside the
order of Ld. CIT(A) and the grounds raised in this appeal are
restored to his file for decision afresh. The assessee would suo
moto furnish a copy of this order to the Ld. CIT(A) for fixing of the
appeal for hearing. Ld. CIT(A) would afforded sufficient
5 In I.T.A. No. 2025/Del/2013
opportunity to the concerned parties before disposal of the
appeal. Needless to say that the assessee would not seek
unnecessary adjournment and co-operate in appellate
This appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on Friday 13th March, 2015 .
(G.D.Agrawal) (Kul Bharat )
(VICE PRESIDENT) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated 13th March, 2015
Copy forwarded to
4. CIT (A)
5. CIT (ITAT), New Delhi.
6 In I.T.A. No. 2025/Del/2013
Sl. Description Date
1. Date of dictation by the Author 12.03.2015
2. Draft placed before the Dictating 12.03.2015
3. Draft placed before the Second
4. Draft approved by the Second
5. Date of approved order comes to
the Sr. PS
6. Date of pronouncement of order
7. Date of file sent to the Bench
8. Date on which file goes to the
9. Date of dispatch of order