Gurjeet Singh v. ITO, Ward-20(3), New Delhi
[Citation -2016-LL-0923-11]

Citation 2016-LL-0923-11
Appellant Name Gurjeet Singh
Respondent Name ITO, Ward-20(3), New Delhi
Court ITAT-Delhi
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 23/09/2016
Assessment Year 2008-09
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags principles of natural justice • opportunity of being heard • reasonable opportunity • issuance of notice • reasonable time
Bot Summary: Although various grounds have been raised by the assessee in the present appeal however the assessee appearing in person only addressed Ground No. 2. The assessment made in Delhi as opposed in Uttarakhand it was argued by the Ld. Sr. DR was a result of PAN application by the assessee in Delhi and if he wants to be assessed at in Uttarakhand then it is for the assessee to carry out the a necessary steps. A perusal of the record shows that that the assessee returned an income of Rs.1,13,020/-. The assessee s source of income was shown as Rs.60,000/- under the head business and profession from M/s Khinda Tractors on account of remuneration interest and Rs.1,25,000/- under the head income from other sources. Various notices were sent to the assessee which remained uncomplied with. In the said background, considering the submission of the parties before the Bench and being of the view that an assessee should not suffer on account of the fault of the counsel, it is considered appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) Page 2 of 3 I.T.A.No. 4723/Del/2015 directing the said Authority to give a reasonable time to the assessee to appear or cause an appearance in response to the date of hearing being fixed.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-4723/Del/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) Gurjeet Singh, vs ITO, Sitarganj, Nanakmata, Ward-20(3), Distt.- Udham Singh Nagar, Uttaranchal. New Delhi. PAN-ALRPS0228G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Gurjeet Singh (Self) Respondent by Ms. Anima Baranwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 03.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement 23.09.2016 ORDER present appeal has been filed by assessee assailing correctness of order dated 26.02.2015 of CIT(A)-12, New Delhi pertaining to 2008-09 assessment year. Although various grounds have been raised by assessee in present appeal however assessee appearing in person only addressed Ground No. 2. same reads as under:- 2. That Ld.CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming impugned assessment without granting any valid and proper opportunity of being heard to appellant and therefore, same is contrary to principles of natural justice and so as such even otherwise order so made is entirely vitiated. 2. Addressing order passed u/s 144 by AO which was assailed before CIT(A). It was submitted that assessee had submitted that he is residing in Uttarakhand and though had engaged counsel despite that he remained Page 1 of 3 I.T.A .No.-4723/Del/2015 unrepresented and deprived of opportunity to place evidences in support of additions assailed. It was submitted that by time notice was received time available to contact counsel was not there. assessment made in Delhi as opposed in Uttarakhand it was argued by Ld. Sr. DR was result of PAN application by assessee in Delhi and if he wants to be assessed at in Uttarakhand then it is for assessee to carry out a necessary steps. Reference was made to para 8.5 of impugned order. As far as lack of proper representation before CIT(A) is concerned Ld.Sr.DR did not oppose request of lack of opportunity in face of arguments advanced. 3. perusal of record shows that that assessee returned income of Rs.1,13,020/-. said return was subjected to scrutiny. assessee s source of income was shown as Rs.60,000/- under head business and profession from M/s Khinda Tractors on account of remuneration interest and Rs.1,25,000/- under head income from other sources. Considering deposits which were picked up by AIR details, assessee was required to explain cash deposits of Rs.22,21,100/-. Considering that despite issuance of notice, no one was present, said amount was added to income of assessee by order u/s 144. Before CIT(A), assessee was represented by counsel Sh. S.K.Anand, CA who initially sought time on health reasons etc. thereafter he did not appear. Various notices were sent to assessee which remained uncomplied with. In said background, considering submission of parties before Bench and being of view that assessee should not suffer on account of fault of counsel, it is considered appropriate to set aside impugned order and restore issue back to file of CIT(A) Page 2 of 3 I.T.A .No.-4723/Del/2015 directing said Authority to give reasonable time to assessee to appear or cause appearance in response to date of hearing being fixed. It is hoped that opportunity so provided is not abused by assessee as failing which CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass speaking order in accordance with law after giving assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. order is pronounced in open court on 23rd September, 2016. Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Page 3 of 3 Gurjeet Singh v. ITO, Ward-20(3), New Delhi
Report Error