Jalaj Shrivastava, New Delhi v. ACIT, Circle- 64(1), New Delhi

ITA 5157/DEL/2018 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 515720114 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN ANOPS2215A
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 5157/DEL/2018
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Jalaj Shrivastava, New Delhi
Respondent ACIT, Circle- 64(1), New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 06-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 06-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 07-08-2019
First Hearing Date 07-08-2019
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 30-07-2018
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 5157 & 5158/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 JALAJ SHRIVASTAVA VS. ACIT CIRCLE 64(1) C-II/163 SATYA MARG NEW DELHI CHANKYA PURI NEW DELHI 110 021 (PAN: ANOPS2215A) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :SH. ASUTOSH LOHIA ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. AMRIT LAL SR. DR. ORDER THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-21 NEW DELHI RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 & 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 5157/DEL/2018 (AY 2011-12 ) 1. BECAUSE IN ANY VIEW THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) OF RS. 5 01 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED CREDIT ENTRIES IS HIGHLY UNJUST WITHOUT PROPER OPPORTUNIT Y WRONG ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND LAW OF THE CASE. 2. BECAUSE IN ANY VIEW AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOV E GROUNDS ADDITION MADE INTEREST CHARGED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ARE WRONG ILLEGAL WITHOUT PROPER OPPORTUNITY BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE LAW FACTS AND LAW OF THE CASE. 3. BECAUSE THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR ALTER ANY OR MORE GROUND OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 5158/DEL/2018 (AY 2012-13 ) 1. BECAUSE IN ANY VIEW THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) OF RS. 52 723/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D CREDIT ENTRIES IS HIGHLY UNJUST WITHOUT PROPER OPPORTUNITY WRONG ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND LAW OF THE CASE. 2. BECAUSE IN ANY VIEW THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) OF RS. 7 16 517/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED CREDIT 2 ENTRIES IS HIGHLY UNJUST WITHOUT PROPER OPPORTUNIT Y WRONG ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND LAW OF THE CASE. 3. BECAUSE IN ANY VIEW AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS ADDITION MADE INTEREST CHARGED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ARE WRONG ILLEGAL WITHOUT PROPER OPPORTUNITY BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND LAW OF THE CASE. 4. BECAUSE THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR ALTER ANY OR MORE GROUND OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 2. SINCE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL HENCE WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE APPEA LS TOGETHER WHICH ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE BY DEALING WITH ITA NO. 5157/DEL/2018 (AY 2011-12) AND THE RESULT THEREOF WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO OTHER APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 5158/DEL/2018 (AY 2012-13). 3. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE N OT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES HENCE THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT ASSESSEE SH. JALAJ SHRIVASTAVA IS AN IAS OFFICER WORKING ON THE POST OF ADDITIONAL SECRETARY IN THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND POSTED IN DELHI. ASSESSEES COUNSEL REQUESTED THAT AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIAT ING HIS CLAIM. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING ALL THE EVID ENCES FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM IF THIS BENCH GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE SAME BEFORE THE AO AND ALSO REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AFTE R GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION ON THE REQ UEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE OR DERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. I FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVIN G ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BUT ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A) HAV E NOT GIVEN PROPER 3 OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CAS E. ACCORDINGLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AFTER GI VING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO EXAMINE ALL THE EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED THROUGH HIS COUNS EL TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND D ID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT WITH THE LIBERTY TO FILE AN Y EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. IN THE RESULT THE ITA NO. 5157/DEL/2018 (AY 2011-12) STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. 6.1 FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW AS TAKEN IN ASSES SMENT YEAR 20011- 12 AS AFORESAID THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ARE ALSO SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE SIMILAR DI RECTIONS AS AFORESAID. ACCORDINGLY THE ITA NO. 5158/DEL/2018 (AY 2012-13) STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 06/11/2019. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 06/11/2019 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES