G. Grinder Muivah, Noida v. ITO, Noida

ITA 318/DEL/2012 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 31820114 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AFUPM4862M
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 318/DEL/2012
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant G. Grinder Muivah, Noida
Respondent ITO, Noida
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 28-04-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 28-04-2014
Next Hearing Date 28-04-2014
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 20-01-2012
Judgment Text
ITA NOS.317&31 8/DEL/12 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. S. SYAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT DIVA SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-317/DEL/2012 (A. Y-2004-05) I.T.A. NO. 318/DEL/2012 (A.Y. 2 005-06) G. GRINDER MUIVAH C/O. KHAIBAK DESIGNERS B-39 SECTOR-5 NOIDA AFUPM4862M (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-1 NOIDA COMMUNITY CENTRE SECTOR-20 NOIDA (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. SIDHANT GOEL ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SH. SATPAL SINGH SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH JM THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 27/7/2011 AND 28/7/2011 OF CIT(A) GHAZIABAD P ERTAINING TO 2004-05 & 2005-06 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. RIGHT OF THE OUTSET IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR IN RESPONSE TO THE DEFECT NOTICE OF 98 DAYS DELAY POINTED OUT BY THE R EGISTRY IN BOTH THE APPEALS THAT THE APPEALS WERE DELAYED ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM JAUNDICE. MEDICAL CERTIFICATE IN SUPPORT OF TH E SAID ASSERTION ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE IS PLACED ON RECORD. ACC ORDINGLY IT WAS HIS REQUEST THAT THE DELAY WHICH IN FACT AMOUNTS TO 94 DAYS AND NOT 98 DAYS MAY BE CONDONED. THE LD. SR. DR HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES WE ARE OF THE ITA NOS.317&31 8/DEL/12 2 VIEW THAT THE DELAY CAUSED IN FILING THE APPEALS WA S FOR REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AS SUCH DESERVES TO BE COND ONED. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE BENCH ITSELF. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS A PARTNER IN THE FIRM OF M/S KHAIBAK ENTERPRISE AND APART FROM INTEREST INCO ME FROM THE FIRM HAS ALSO CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF INCOME U/S 10(26) AMOUNTING TO RS.15LACS. IN THE RETURN FILED THE INCOME WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT UNDER THE SA ID PROVISIONS INCOME ARISING AND ACCRUING BELONGING TO TANGKHUL NAGA COMMUNITY W HICH IS RECOGNIZED AS A SCHEDULED TRIBE IN THE STATE OF MIZORAM MANIPUR AN D NAGALAND ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER ISSUING NOTICES ETC REQUIRE D THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SAID CLAIM. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME NO ONE APPEARED . ACCORDINGLY A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ASKING THE ASSESSEE WHY ASSESSMEN T BE NOT COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD U/S 144 STATING AS UNDER:- YOU HAVE CLAIMED INCOME OF RS.1500000/- EXEMPT 10 (26) OF IT ACT. HOWEVER NO DETAILS/PROOF REGARDING THIS CLAIM HAS BEEN FILE D WITH RETURN OF INCOME. SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY INCOME OF RS.1500000/- BE NOT ADDED TO YO UR INCOME AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. IT WAS ALSO MADE CLEAR TO THE ASSESSEE THAT IF HE F AILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS NOTICE ON THE DATE FIXED THE CASE WOULD BE COMPLET ED EX-PARTE U/S 144 OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3.1 IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE SHRI K. C. GUPTA C.A APPEARED SEEKING TIME. THE HEARING ACCORDINGLY WAS ADJOURNED. ON THE NEXT FEW DATES NO ONE APPEARED DESPITE VARIOUS NOTICES. IN VIEW OF THE SAME ASSESS MENT U/S 144 WAS CONCLUDED WHEREIN RS. 15 LAC WAS ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE APART FROM CONTES TING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICES ETC ALSO VIDE PER PARA 7 OF THE IMPUGNED OR DER CLAIMED THAT RS. 15LAC WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY HIS FATHER WHO WAS A CLASS ONE CONT RACTOR AND THE ASSESSEE WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN GETTING THE CONTRACTS FROM VARIOUS AUTHORITIES FOR HIS FATHER. ITA NOS.317&31 8/DEL/12 3 HOWEVER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED AS BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALSO THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. IN 2005-06 T HE FACTS DIFFER IN AS MUCH AS EXEMPT INCOME WAS CLAIMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.23 LA KH WHICH WAS DISALLOWED AND CONFIRMED IN APPEAL FOR SIMILAR REASONS. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL IN B OTH THE YEARS. THE REQUEST OF THE LD. AR WAS THAT NECESSARY EVIDENCES COULD NO T BE PLACED ON RECORD AS SUCH THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED. THE LD. SR. DR REQUESTE D THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ISSUE BE RESTORED TO THE A.O FOR CONSIDERING THE FR ESH EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSSEE IS SEEKING TO FILE. CONSIDERING THE SUBMI SSION OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PEC ULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR BOTH THE YEARS SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE O F THE AO WHO NECESSARILY TAKING THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD WHICH THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO PLACE ON RECORD SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH OF APRIL 2014. SD/- SD/- (R. S. SYAL) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28/04/2014 *R. NAHEED* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ITA NOS.317&31 8/DEL/12 4 ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI