Tejpal Singh, 861, S.P. Mukherji Marg, Behind Novelty Cinema, New Delhi-110 052 vs. ITO, Ward -34(4) Delhi
January, 31st 2019
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "SMC": NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.:- 5125/Del/2018
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Tejpal Singh, ITO,
861, S.P. Mukherji Marg, Ward -34(4)
Behind Novelty Cinema, Vs. Delhi
New Delhi-110 052 Pan AATPS7743P
Assessee by: Shri Anoop Sharma, Advocate
Department by : Shri S.L. Anuragi Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 30/01/2019
Date of 31 /01/2019
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against
impugned order dated 12.1.2018 passed by Ld. CIT(A) 12, New Delhi
for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) for the assessment
year 2013-14. The assessee is mainly aggrieved by ex parte order
passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and also various additions made by the AO
assessing the income at Rs. 27,44,000/- as against the return income
of Rs. 2,07,146/-.
2. Before us, Ld. Counsel submitted that not only before the AO
but also before the Ld. CIT (A), no proper opportunity has been given
to the assessee. First of all, he drew our attention to para 2 of the
assessment order and pointed out that only effective notice given by
the AO dated 15.3.2016 to which assessee attended on 18.3.2016
alongwith the details and thereafter further details were asked by the
AO vide order sheet dated 21.3.2016. However, within seven days he
has passed the order on 29.3.2016. The AO has made various
additions without even considering the material placed on record or
giving further opportunity to explain the issues and filing of details.
Even Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order despite letter of
adjournment was filed in the office of the CIT(A) which was sought on
the ground that counsel was ill and was unable to argue the case.
Under these facts and circumstances, he submitted that matter
should be restored back to the file of the AO for deciding the issue
2. Ld. DR submitted that he has no objection if the entire issue is
set aside to the file of the AO for making afresh assessment.
3. From the perusal of the impugned orders, we find that the Ld.
AO at para 2 of the assessment order himself has said that earlier year
notices were unserved and one notice dated 15.3.2016 was served to
assessee in response to which certain details were filed by the Counsel
of the assessee. Thereafter, AO asked for further details, however, the
time allowed was very short and accordingly, he has made huge
addition vide assessment order dated 21.3.2016. Again from the
perusal of the impugned appellate order, it is seen that the first notice
sent could not be served upon the assessee and on another two
occasions assessee has filed for adjournment and thereafter the Ld.
CIT (A) had decided the appeal ex parte confirming the addition made
by the AO. Thus, it is quite palpable that no proper opportunity has
been given to the assessee to present this case. Accordingly, in the
interest of justice, the entire matter is remanded back to the file of the
AO to re-decide the issues afresh and in accordance with law after
giving due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee to
substantiate this case.
4. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2019.
Dated: 31 /01/2019
Copy forwarded to
4. CIT (A)
ITAT, New Delhi