Sushma Behl, Dehradun v. ITO, Dehradun

ITA 1976/DEL/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 197620114 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AHXPB5688D
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1976/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant Sushma Behl, Dehradun
Respondent ITO, Dehradun
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 28-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 28-11-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 11-05-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA ITA NO. 1976/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 SMT. SUSHMA BEHL VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER 183 KARANPUR WARD 2(1) BLOCK II DEHRADUN. DEHRADUN. (PAN: AHXPB5688D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI ASHWANI T ANEJA ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SMT. S. MOHANTHY DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.11.2011 ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 04.02.2009 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 35 645 WITHOUT CONS IDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT RECORDING ANY CATEGORICAL F INDING. IN GROUND NO.1 SHE HAS PLEADED THAT HER CASE HAS ERRONEOUSLY BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT SURVEY WAS CON DUCTED UPON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC. 131A OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE AS PER THE INSTRUCTION NO.10/2004 A SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE CARRIED OUT ON HER RETURN. 2 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT CONSIDER THOSE SUBMISSIONS AND FAILED TO RECORD ANY CATEGORICAL FINDINGS ON TH E ISSUES. HE TOOK US THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). HE P RAYED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER BE REMIT TED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR READJUDICATIO N. ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED DR WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 OF THE ACT MANDATES THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO STATE THE POIN TS FOR DETERMINATION IN AN APPEAL. AFTER THE DETERMINATION OF THE POINTS LEAR NED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO RECORD REASONS ON SUCH POI NTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONCLUSION. THE FIRST ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LEA RNED CIT(APPEALS) IS OF RS.1 35 645. HE NARRATED THE FACTS IN PARAGRAPH NO. 4 HOWEVER THE CONCLUSION OF LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ARE NOWHERE DISCERNIBLE ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS NOT DISCERNIBLE WHETHER THIS ADDI TION IS CONFIRMED OR DELETED. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO NOTE THE ARGUMEN TS TAKEN BY THE 3 ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS RUNNING INTO ALM OST FIVE PAGES. SIMILAR IS THE CIRCUMSTANCE WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND ISSUE WH EREBY AN ADDITION OF RS.63 400 HAS BEEN MADE. IT RELATES TO THE PAYMENT OF SALARY TO THE STAFF. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO RAISE THE GROUND ABOUT SELECTION FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). SHE PLEADED BEFORE US THAT NO SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN HER CASE. IT WAS CONDUCTED ON THE BUSI NESS PREMISES OF HER HUSBAND THEREFORE THE INSTRUCTION NO.10 OF 2004 I SSUED BY THE CBDT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN HER CASE. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FAILED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE ON MERIT AND FAILED TO RECORD CLEAR CUT FINDING ON THE ADDITIONS. THEREFORE THE ISSUE DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR READJUDICATIO N. WE TAKE COGNIZANCE OF ASSESSEES FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL THAT HER CASE OUG HT NOT TO BE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND REMIT THIS ISSUE ALSO TO TH E FILE OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO SUBMIT ANY DETAIL BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF HER CASE. IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE OBSERVATIO NS MADE BY US WILL NOT IMPAIR OR INJURE THE CASE OF THE A.O. AND WOULD NO T CAUSE ANY PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENCE/EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN. SD/- SD/- ( A.N. PAHUJA ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28/11/2011 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR