Naresh Sodhani,, Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI B.P. JAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3644/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 NARESH SODHANI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHOP NO. 10 BUILDING NO. 32-C WARD 39(3) B.R. COMPLEX NEAR UNA ENCLAVE NEW DELHI. MAYUR VIHAR-1 DELHI. PAN NO. AIIPS1714K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARESH SODHANI AR RESPONDENT BY : SH. H.K. LAL SR. DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 08.06.2009 FOR A.Y. 2006-07. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: - 1. ADDITION OF RS. 2685000/- CASH DEPOSITED IN BA NK A/C : THE LD. AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2685000/- ON TH E BASIS OF CIB INFORMATION. AS PER THE AO THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPO SITED RS. 2685000/- AS SHOWN IN CIB INFORMATION IS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOM E OF ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE LD. AO WAS INFORMED THAT THE FIGURE OF RS. 268 5000/- AS SHOWN IN THE CIB INFORMATION IS NOT CORRECT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE CASH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT AND SAME WAS DEPOSI TED IN THE BANK HENCE THE QUESTION OF ADDITION DOES NOT ARISE. THE ADDITION THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. ADDITION OF RS. 1798399/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT S U/S 69 : ITA NO. 3644/DEL/09 2 THE LD. AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1798399/- ON T HE GROUND THAT THESE ARE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF I.T. ACT . IN THIS REGARD IT IS STATED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM BROKER AG AINST SALES OF SHARES AND FROM CLIENTS. HENCE THIS ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3. ANY OTHER INFORMATION AND SUBMISSION AT THE TIM E OF HEARING. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS ORDER OF CIT(A) BOTH ARE EX-PARTE ORDER. A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF AN INFORMATION RECEI VED FROM CIB. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT IT WILL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO FRAME DENOVO ASSESSMENT AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW AFTER PROVIDIN G THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT NONE OF THE NOTICES ISSUED BY CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AND CIT(A). 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT IT IS A FIT CASE WHERE THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. A PERUSAL OF OR DER OF CIT(A) WILL REVEAL THAT THERE IS NO MENTION OF SERVICE OF NOTICE ON AS SESSEE AS THEY HAVE BEEN STATED TO BE ISSUED ONLY. THEREFORE ACCEPTING THE REQUEST OF COUNSEL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE RESTORE THIS ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO FRAME DENOVO ASSESSMENT AFTER GIVING T HE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. AFTER GIVING SU CH OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING THE AO WILL FRAME THE ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 3644/DEL/09 3 5. AS WE ARE RESTORING THE ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE O F AO FOR MAKING DENOVO ASSESSMENT AS PER LAW WE THEREFORE DO NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS CONTESTED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AS THEY WILL BE FRESHLY DECIDED BY THE AO AS PER DIRECTIONS GIVEN I N THIS ORDER. 6. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.01.201 0 (B.P. JAIN) (I.P. BANSA L) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER DATED: *KAVITA CHOPRA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR