Ashok Kumar, Sonepat v. ITO, Sonepat

ITA 3198/DEL/2016 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 319820114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN ARAPK9383K
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3198/DEL/2016
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant Ashok Kumar, Sonepat
Respondent ITO, Sonepat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC 3
Tribunal Order Date 07-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 04-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 04-10-2016
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 01-06-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SM C - 3 NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO S . 3198 & 3199 /DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR S : 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 1 2 ASHOK KUMAR S/O - SH. KRISHAN KU MAR H.NO. - 1300 SECTOR - 12 SONEPAT HARYANA VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 SONEPAT HARYANA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A RAPK9383K ASSESSEE BY : SH. N. S. BHATNAGAR ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. F. R. MEENA SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 04.10 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 . 10 .201 6 ORDER THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 18.02.2016 AND 23.02.2016 OF LD. CIT(A) FARIDABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 WERE HEARD TO GETHER SO THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THESE TWO APPEAL S VIDE GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 RELATES TO THE OPPORTUNITY NOT BEING PROVIDED BY THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A). 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ITA NO S. 3198 & 3199 /DEL /201 6 ASHOK K UMAR 2 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) AFTER NOTICING THAT THERE WAS MISMATCH IN THE RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS MENTIONED IN FO RM NO. 26AS . THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THOSE FIGURES BY PASSING THE EX - PARTE ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY ADDITIONS OF RS.10 72 000/ - AND RS.13 63 762/ - WERE MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 RESPECTIVELY IN TH E RETURNED INCOME. 4 . BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO PASSED THE EX - PARTE ORDER IN LIMINE BY MENTIONING THAT THE NOTICES OF HEARING WERE ISSUED ON 08.02.2016 FOR HEARING ON 16.02.2016 AND ON THAT DATE NONE ATTENDED N OR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED. 5 . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD. CIT(A) HAD GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND PASS ED THE EX - PARTE ORDER. IT WAS FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DUE TO THE AGITATION BY THE JAT IN VARIOUS PART S OF HARYANA. HE ALSO FURNISHED THE COPIES OF THE CUTTINGS OF VARIOUS NEWSPAPERS FROM 14.02.2016 TO 17.02.2016 IN SUPPORT OF HIS ABOVE SU BMISSIONS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE BEFORE PASSING THE EX - ITA NO S. 3198 & 3199 /DEL /201 6 ASHOK K UMAR 3 PARTE ORDER AND MAKING THE ADDITION. IT WAS STATED THAT FORM NO. 26AS RELIED UPON BY THE AO WAS NOT RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE SA ME PERTAINED TO M/S SHIVAM CO - OPERATIVE L/C WHOSE PAN NUMBER WAS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE REQUESTED TO REMAND THE CASES BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 6 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR ALTHOUGH SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 7 . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT A PPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DUE TO JAT AGITATION FOR RESERVATION IN HARYANA WHICH FACT IS EVIDENT FROM THE CUTTINGS OF THE VARIOUS NEWSPAPERS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE AO CONSIDERED THE WRONG 26AS FORM WHICH DID NOT PERTAINED TO THE ASSESSEE. I THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THESE CASES BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSE SSEE. ITA NO S. 3198 & 3199 /DEL /201 6 ASHOK K UMAR 4 8 . IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . (ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 07 /10 /2016) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 07 /10 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR