Sh. Binda Hooda, Haryana v. ITO, Rohtak

ITA 620/DEL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 62020114 RSA 2010
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 620/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Binda Hooda, Haryana
Respondent ITO, Rohtak
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 16-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 16-07-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 14-07-2010
Next Hearing Date 14-07-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 09-02-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ITA NO. 620(DEL)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 BINDU HOODA INCOME-TAX OFFICER H.NO. 435 WARD 11 VS. WARD-3 ROHTAK. ARYA NAGAR BAHADURGARH DISTT. JHAJJAR. PAN-ABPPH3753F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NAVEEN GUPTA ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AMRENDRA KUMAR SR. DR ORDER PER K.D. RANJAN: A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ARISES OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) ROHTAK. THE RELEVANT GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- (I) THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT GRA NTING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE APPELLANT. (II) THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMI NG ADDITION OF RS. 40 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM THE BR OTHER U/S 69 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ALTHOUGH ALL NECESSARY EVIDENC ES WERE FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (III) THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRM ING ADDITION OF RS. 60 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT TREATED BY THE LD. AO AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLO SED SOURCES WHICH IS ALSO IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 69 OF THE IT ACT. ITA NO. 620(DEL)/2010 2 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS SUBMITTE D BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY LD. CIT(APPE ALS) ROHTAK WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE LD. C IT(APPEALS) HAS PASSED EX- PARTE ORDER. HE ACCORDINGLY REQUESTED THAT MAT TER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT(APPEALS) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECID E THE APPEAL AFRESH. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THR OUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS A FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD PASSED EX- PARTE ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE THE NOTICE ISSUED BY CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT BEEN SERVED UPON T HE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MATTER SHOU LD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHO WILL DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JULY 2010. SD/- SD/- (I.P.BANSAL) (K.D.RANJAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF ORDER: 16TH JULY 2010. SP SATIA ITA NO. 620(DEL)/2010 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- BINDU HOODA BAHADURGARH. ITO WARD-3 ROHTAK. CIT(A) CIT THE DR ITAT NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.