Bhoop Singh Noida v. Ito Ward 1 2 Noida

ITA 5374/DEL/2017 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2017 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

Note: Please login to view full details
RSA Number 537420114 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN xxxxxxxxxxx
Bench xxxxxxxxxxx
Appeal Number xxxxxxxxxxx
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant xxxxxxxxxxx
Respondent xxxxxxxxxxx
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 13-12-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 13-12-2017
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 21-08-2017
Judgment Text
In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench Smc New Delhi Before Sh N K Saini A Ccountant M Ember Ita No 5374 Del 2017 Asstt Year 2008 09 Bhoop Singh S O Harkesh Vill Sala Rpur Sector 101 Noida Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1 2 Noida Appellant Respondent Pan No B Wnps 6906 D Assessee By Sh Raghuraj Singh Adv Revenue By Ms Ashima Neb Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12 12 201 7 Date Of Pronouncement 13 12 201 7 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30 06 2016 Of Ld Cit A I Noida 2 The Assessee Has Taken Eight Grounds Of Appeal However The Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To The Sustenance Of Addition Of Rs 10 00 000 Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposited 3 Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Ao On The Basis Of Air Information Received From Cit Cib Kanpur That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs 10 00 000 In Cash In His Savings Bank Account Maintained With Bank Of India Bhangel Noida Had Taken The Action U S 147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Hereinafter Referred To As The Act The Ao Ita No 5374 Del 201 7 Bhoop Singh 2 Mentioned That Whenever The Case Was Fixed For Hearing The Assessee Sought Adjournment He Therefore By Considering The Non Cooperative Attitude Of The Assessee Made The Addition Of Rs 10 00 000 4 Being Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter To The Ld Cit A Who Sustained The Addition By Observing That The Ca Se Was Fixed For Hearing On 16 06 2016 But There Was No Response From The Assessee Side 5 Now The Assessee Is In Appeal The Ld Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That No Notice Of Hearing Was Received By The Assessee Therefore The Ld Cit A Was N Ot Justified In Sustaining The Addition By Passing The Ex Parte Order 6 In Her Rival Submissions The Ld Sr Dr Supported The Orders Of The Authorities Below 7 I Have Considered The Submissions Of Both The Parties And Perused The Material Availabl E On The Record In The Present Case It Is An Admitted Fact That The Ao As Well As The Ld Cit A Passed Their Respective Order Ex Parte The Ld Cit A Although Mentioned That The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 16 06 2016 But Nowhere He Has Pointed Out T Hat Notice For Hearing Was Served Upon The Assessee It Is Well Settled That Nobody Should Be Condemned Unheard As Per The Maxim Audi Alteram Partem I Therefore By Keeping In View The Principles Of Natural Justice Deem It Appropriate To Set Aside The Impugned Order And Remand The Issue Back To Ita No 5374 Del 201 7 Bhoop Singh 3 The File Of The Ld Cit A To Be Adjudicated Afresh In Accordance With Law After Providing Due And Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee 8 In The Result The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes O Rd E R Pronounced In The Court On 13 12 2017 Sd N K Saini Accountant Me Mber Dat Ed 13 12 2017 Subodh Copy Forwarded To 1 Appellant 2 Respondent 3 Cit 4 Cit Appeals 5 Dr Itat Assistant Registrar