M/s K.G. Global (P) Ltd., New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1336/DEL/2011 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 133620114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AABCK4552D
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1336/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant M/s K.G. Global (P) Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 26-03-2012
Next Hearing Date 26-03-2012
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 15-03-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ITA NOS. 1335 TO 1337/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 K.G. GLOBAL (P) LTD. VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER B-341 LOK VIHAR PITAMPURA WARD 5(1) NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN: AABCK4552D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI ASHWANI T ANEJA ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SMT. Y. KAKKAR D R DATE OF HEARING : 26.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .03.2012 ORDER PER BENCH: THE PRESENT THREE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INST ANCE OF ASSESSEE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DA TED 31.01.2011 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02. IN ITA NO. 133 5/DEL/2011 ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 AS WELL AS CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.5 00 000 WHICH WAS A DDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE AID OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS AVAILABLE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOU NT. IN ITA NO.1336/DEL/2011 ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING PENALTY O F RS.10 000 LEVIED UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 FO R NON-COMPLIANCE OF 2 NOTICE. IN ITA NO. 1337/DEL/2011 ASSESSEE IS IMPUG NING THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS.1 99 000 WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO THE TAX SOUGHT T O BE EVADED ON AN ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PENALTY ORDERS AND ORDER OF THE L EARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ARE EX PARTE ORDERS. LEARNED FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTIES ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT PENALTY ORDERS ALONG WITH THE APPEALS. WITH REGARD TO THE A DDITION OF RS.5 01 250 LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DID NOT MAKE ELAB ORATE DISCUSSION AND CONCUR WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). HE SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORIGINALLY WAS FRAMED UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT. DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED TO RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO SER VE THE NOTICE DATED 24.12.2008 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 26.12.2008 . HE POINTED OUT THAT SHRI MUKESH GOEL S/O SHRI S.P. GOEL DIRECTOR OF TH E COMPANY HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT TO THIS EFFECT. THUS ACCORDING TO THE LE ARNED COUNSEL PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS NOT GRANTED TO THE ASSE SSEE BY THE ASSESSING 3 OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE PRAYE D THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R READJUDICATION. 3. LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND OPPOSED THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE. SHE POINTED OUT THAT LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ISSUED NUMBER OF NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN SUMMARIZED ON PAGE 1 OF THE ORDER BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THESE NOTICE S IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 4. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON 28.3.2008. THEREAFTER ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NARRATED THE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT. IN PARAGR APH (E) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS MENTIONED THAT SHRI YUDHVIR SINGH FCA APPEARED AND FILED HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY. HE FILED A LETTER DATED 4.12.20 08. THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 8.12.2008 AND ULTIMATELY ASSESSMENT OR DER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 26.12.2008. FROM THE DISCUSSION AVAILABLE IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER IT DISCERN THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE RE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2008 ITSELF. IT INDICATES THAT EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS NOT GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A N ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. IT IS QUITE DIFFICULT FOR THE ASSESSE E TO LAY ITS HANDS OF THE 4 RECORD PERTAINING TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR IN 2008. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO FOR NON COMP LIANCE BUT TO OUR MIND HE OUGHT TO HAVE INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS WELL IN TIME IF HE CAN ISSUE A NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 IN THE MONTH OF MARCH THEN WH Y HE WAITED UP TO THE MONTH OF DECEMBER TO COLLECT THE OTHER INFORMATION. NO DOUBT BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NEGLIGENT IN NOT RESPONDING TO THE NOTICES HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE OVERALL EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE COUPLED WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE D IRECTOR WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET IF WE SET A SIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL AS ALL THE ORDERS PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RESTORE ALL THESE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR READJUDICATION. IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE OBSE RVATIONS MADE BY US WILL NOT IMPAIR OR INJURE THE CASE OF A.O. OR WOULD NOT CAUS E ANY PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENCE/EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER SHALL READJUDICATE ALL ISSUES AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING. 5. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.03.201 2 SD/- SD/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30/03/2012 MOHAN LAL 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR