Shri Sushil Kumar Ghaziabad v. Ito Ghaziabad

ITA 2068/DEL/2016 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2017 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

Note: Please login to view full details
RSA Number 206820114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN xxxxxxxxxxx
Bench xxxxxxxxxxx
Appeal Number xxxxxxxxxxx
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant xxxxxxxxxxx
Respondent xxxxxxxxxxx
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-12-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 26-12-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 29-05-2017
Next Hearing Date 29-05-2017
First Hearing Date 29-05-2017
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 13-04-2016
Judgment Text
Ita No 2068 Del 2016 1 In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench C New Delhi Before Shri N K Saini Accountant Member Shri K N Chary Judicial Member Ita No 2068 Del 2016 Assessment Year 2011 12 Sushil Kumar 797 Vaishali Rachna Double Storey Flats Ghaziabad Blspk 8853 R Vs Ito Ward 2 3 Cgo Complex 1 Ghaziabad Assessee By S Sh Anup Sharma Adv Sanjay Parashar Adv Revenue By Sh Arun Kumar Yadav Sr Dr Order Per K Narsimha Chary J M Assessee Is An Individual And Filed His Return Of Income For The Ay 2011 12 On 22 01 2015 Declaring A Total Income Of R S 1 57 720 Ld Ao Recorded That When The Case Was Selected For Scr Utiny Notice U S 143 2 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 For Short Called As The Act Was Issued On 10 09 2012 Which Was Duly Served But Sin Ce There Was No Compliance Notice U S 142 1 Was Issued And Served Again No Compliance Could Be Secured Subsequent Notices Da Ted 06 09 2013 25 10 2013 Were Issued On 29 11 2013 Assessee App Eared In Person And Sought Time Subsequently On 30 12 2013 The As Sessee Filed A Date Of Hearing 20 12 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 26 12 2017 Ita No 2068 Del 2016 2 Letter Stating That The Case Of The Assessee May Be Transferred To Ao Ward 22 2 New Delhi Since The Returns Of Income W Ere Being Filed There However Since The Residential Address Of T He Assessee Was Within The Jurisdiction Of Ao Ward 2 3 The File W As Not Transferred And The Assessee Never Appeared Thereafter In Those C Ircumstances Ao Completed Assessment U S 144 Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs 61 28 000 Appeal Was Preferred And Was Disposed Of By Way Of Impugned Order Wherein The Ld Cit A Observed Tha T The Assessee Has Never Appeared Before Him Too To Explain The Reasons For Delay In Preferring The Appeal And To Prosecute The Appeal O N Merits Also In The Circumstances Ld Cit A Also Proceed Ex Parte And Dismissed The Appeal Hence This Appeal By The Assessee 2 It Is The Argument Of The Ld Ar That The Absenc E Of The Assessee Either Before The Ao Or Before The Ld Cit A Is N Ot Intentional He Submits That The Assessee Being A Low Paid Employee Of A Private Company Has No Knowledge At All Of The Income Tax Pr Oceedings And Believing The Words Of His Earlier Counsel That The Case Was Barred By Jurisdiction As Such There Was No Need To Appear In This Matter The Assessee Absented Himself He Submits That If An O Pportunity Is Given On Humanitarian Considerations The Assessee Would Get His Tax Liability Determined By The Ao Per Contra Ld Dr Submits That Sufficient Opportunity Had Already Been Given To Th E Assessee And There Are No Merits In This Appeal Ita No 2068 Del 2016 3 3 Having Heard The Arguments We Have Perused The Record The Assessee Does Not Take Shelter Of Any Legal Rights Vested In Him In This Matter His Plea Is That On Filing The Letter For Transfer Of The Case From Ao Ward No 2 3 Of Ghaziabad To Ao 22 2 Of New De Lhi He Was Made To Believe By His Counsel That The Proceedings Are Barred By Jurisdiction As Such There Is No Need To Appear F Urther In This Matter Record Does Not Reveal That Any Communication Was S Ent To The Assessee After Rejecting His Request For Transfer Ao Recorded That Inasmuch As The Permanent And Present Address Of Th E Assessee And The Bank With Which He Holds His Account Fall Withi N His Jurisdiction There Was No Need To Transfer The Matter Since It Is Pleaded That The Assessee Is A Low Paid Employee Without Any Knowled Ge Of The Act Rules Or Procedures He Failed To Enquire And Know T He Fate Of His Application The Matter Ended Up In Assessment Orde R U S 144 Of The Act And The Appeal Was Also Dismissed Strictly Sp Eaking There Does Not Appear To Be Any Legal Right In Favour Of The A Ssessee However Since All The Endeavour Of The Procedure Before The Ao Cit A And The Tribunal To Reach The Just Tax Liability Of The Ass Essee We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Ends Of Justice Would B E Met Not By Taking A Strict Rulistic View And To Deny Any Opportunity To The Assessee But Certainly By Taking A Lenient View To Allow Him A R Easonable Opportunity Since The Assessee Does Not Stand To Gain By Suffering Ex Parte Orders The Reason Attributed By Him For His Absenc E Before The Ita No 2068 Del 2016 4 Authorities Below Cannot Be Brushed Aside With Th Is View Of The Matter We Set Aside The Matter To The File Of The Ao To Determine The Tax Liability Of The Assessee By Giving An Opportuni Ty To Him It Is Made Clear That It Is The Last Opportunity To The Assess Ee We Order Accordingly 4 In The Result The Appeal Of The Assessee Is All Owed For Statistical Purposes Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 26 12 2017 Sd Sd N K Saini K Narsimha Chary Accountant Member Judicial Memb Er Dated 26 12 2017 Kavita Arora Copy Forwarded To 1 Appellant 2 Respondent 3 Cit 4 Cit Appeals 5 Dr Itat True Copy Assistant Registrar Itat New Delhi