IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: `SMC-2' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A .No.-4619/Del/2014
(ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2009-10)
Smt. Veermati, vs ITO,
C/o Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Boundary Baraut
Road, Civil Lines, Meerut.
BJAPS3629B
&
I.T.A .No.-4620/Del/2014
(ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2009-10)
Hari Singh Verma, vs ITO,
C/o Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Boundary Baraut
Road, Civil Lines, Meerut.
BJAPS3629B
Appellant by Sh. V.K. Goel, Adv.
Respondent by Sh. Sudhiranjan Senapati, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing: 03.08.2015
Date of Pronouncement: 04.08.2015
ORDER
Both the assessees have filed the present appeal against the different
impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), Meerut dated 18/03/2014 in ITA No.
4619/D/2014 & order dated 14/03/2014 in ITA No. 4620/D/2014 for assessment
year 2009-10.
2. For the sake of convenience the grounds raised in ITA No. 4619/D/14 in the
case of Smt. Veermati for A.Y. 2009-10 & in ITA No. 4620/D/14 in the case of Sh.
Hari Singh Verma for A.Y. 2009-10 are read as under:
ITA No. 4619/Del/2014 : Smt. Veermati vs. ITO, Baraut : A.Y. 2009-10:
1. "That the assessee's husband was died in 2010 and similar addition was made
in the case of Smt. Veermati L/H of [Late] Sh. Hari Singh Verma. The both the
additions were made on substantial basis in both the case therefore same
2 I.T.A .Nos.-4619 & 4620/Del/2014
income cannot be assessed in both the cases. Hence, the CIT(A) is in error in
confirming the same without going through the details of the case.
2. That on 13.12.2013 & 17.01.2014 no CIT(A) was present to heard the appeal as
he was transferred as CIT, Administration, Meerut and on 17.02.2014 &
14.03.2014 the assessee seek adjournment but CIT(A) was not present. Hence,
order passed by CIT(A) Meerut on 14.03.2014 as ex parte order is against the
facts and law and against the principle of natural justice.
3. That order passed by CIT(A) & AO is not decided on merits hence, confirmation
of CIT(A) ex parte is bad in law."
ITA No. 4620/Del/2014 : Sh. Hari Singh Verma vs. ITO, Baraut : A.Y. 2009-10:
1. "That the assessee was died in 2010 and similar addition was made in the case
of Smt. Veermati L/H of [Late] Sh. Hari Singh Verma. The both the additions
were made on substantial basis in both the case therefore same income cannot
be assessed in both the cases. Hence, the CIT(A) is in error in confirming the
same without going through the details of the case.
2. That on 13.12.2013 & 17.01.2014 no CIT(A) was present to heard the appeal as
he was transferred as CIT, Administration, Meerut and on 17.02.2014 &
14.03.2014 the assessee seek adjournment but CIT(A) was not present. Hence,
order passed by CIT(A) Meerut on 14.03.2014 as ex parte order is against the
facts and law and against the principle of natural justice.
3. That order passed by CIT(A) & AO is not decided on merits hence, confirmation
of CIT(A) ex parte is bad in law."
3. I have heard the both appeals together because issue in dispute in both
appeals are identical. Therefore, for the sake of convenience I am disposing these
two appeals by passing one consolidated order.
4. The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by the both
parties. Therefore, no need to repeat the same for the sake of convenience.
5. At the time of hearing ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the ld. First
appellate authority has passed the impugned order contrary to the law and facts on
the file and against the principle of natural justice. He further stated that the AO as
well as the ld. First appellate authority has not given proper opportunity to the
assessee for substantiating their claim before them. He drew my attention towards
the order passed by the revenue authorities. He requested that the appeal filed by
3 I.T.A .Nos.-4619 & 4620/Del/2014
the assessee may be accepted and the order passed by the revenue authorities may
be cancelled.
6. On the contrary, ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the ld. First
appellate authority and stated that ld. CIT(Appeals), Meerut has given sufficient
opportunity to the assessee for substantiating their claim before him but the
assessee has not availed the opportunity and the ld. First appellate authority has
decided the case of the assessee under the law. He requested that appeal filed by
the assessee may be dismissed.
7. I have heard the both parties perused the relevant record available with
me. After perusing the orders passed by the revenue authorities I am of the view
that the AO has made the addition in dispute on the basis of evidence available with
him and the ld. First appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-
parte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Ld. First appellate
authority has passed almost identical impugned orders. For the sake of convenience
I am reproducing the order passed in the case of Smt. Veermati W/o Hari Singh
Verma in ITA No. 4619/D/2014 as under:
"Appellate order and grounds of decision u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961
The present appeal is directed against the order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act
dated 28.12.2011 passed by ITO, Baraut. In compliance to notices u/s 250 of the
Act, none appeared.
2. Following dates of hearing were allowed to the appellant:
Date of issue of Date fixed for Remarks
notice hearing/adjourned
date
24.12.2013 09.01.2014 No compliance
10.02.2014 24.02.2014 No compliance
27.02.2014 18.03.2014 Adjournment
application was
received on
14.03.2014
3. From the above it is evident that more than sufficient opportunities of
being heard have been allowed to the appellant. However, on all the dates fixed
for heairng, the appellant eithr has not made any compliance or filed adjournment
applications. This implies that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the
4 I.T.A .Nos.-4619 & 4620/Del/2014
appeal for the reasons best known to him. Since, sufficient opportunity being
heard have been given to the appellant, no further adjournment can be granted.
Therefore, the appela is disposed off on the basis of material evidence on the
record.
4. Since the appellant has not furnished any details and evidences against
the additions made by the AO in the assessment order. Therefore, in the absence
of the same, it is held that the AO was justified in making additions. The same are
hereby confirmed. Grounds of appeal are dismissed."
8. After going through the aforesaid order passed by the ld. First appellate
authority which is identical in both the appeals I am of the considered view that ld.
First appellate authority has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee for
substantiating their claim before them and decided the issue in dispute against the
assessee in a hurry manner.
9. In the interest of justice, I am setting aside the issues in dispute to the ld.
First appellate authority to decide the same afresh under the law after giving full
opportunity to the assessee.
10. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical
purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 04/08/2015
Sd/-
(H.S. SIDHU)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 04/08/2015
*Kavita, P.S.
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT NEW DELHI
5 I.T.A .Nos.-4619 & 4620/Del/2014
Sl. Description Date
No.
1. Date of dictation by the Author 03.08.2015
2. Draft placed before the Dictating Member 04.08.2015
3. Draft placed before the Second Member 04.08.2015
4. Draft approved by the Second Member 04.08.2015
5. Date of approved order comes to the Sr. PS 04.08.2015
6. Date of pronouncement of order 04.08.2015
7. Date of file sent to the Bench Clerk 04.08.2015
8. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk
9. Date of dispatch of order
|
