Santarpal Singh, Roorkee vs Assessee

I.T.A. No. 3274/DEL/2013 A.Y. : 2009-10 Shri Santarpal Singh, Income Tax Officer, S/o Shri Randhir Singh, VS. Ward-2, Roorkee, 270, Ganeshpur, Roorkee Uttranchal (PAN: ABUPS3606D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Assessee by : None Department by : Sh. BRR Kumar, Sr. DR.

Date of Hearing : 02-6-2015 Date of Order : 02-6-2015

ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU : JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order of

the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi dated

04.2.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 on the following

grounds:-

"1. The Appellant Order, as completed, is wrong, illegal,

and against the facts of the case.

1

ITA NO. 3274/Del/2013

2. In this case Ld. A.O. has passed the order before the

date fixed for hearing. In the Appeal, too, Ld. CIT Appeal

has not provided the proper opportunity of hearing.

Even the Ld CIT Appeal has not supplied the copy of

Remand Report prepared by A.O. after detail examination

of account and considering the evidences and Material

produced by the Appellant during the course of Remand

Proceeding. So the Appellant could not rebut those

materials. Which are against the appellant, in the

Remand Report.

3. That Ld. CIT Appeal has confirmed the rejection of

accounts and has also confirmed the Application of higher

rate of N.P. on the basis of account. When the Appellant

has produced the account before Ld. A.O. during the

course of Remand Proceeding, Ld. ClT Appeal should

have not given the adverse finding regarding the

account, in appellate order.

4. That the Ld. CIT Appeal should have not confirmed the

application of N.P. @ 8%, ) When the Appellant has

shown the N.P. 5.03%, which is quite reasonable.

5. That the Ld. CIT Appeal is not justified for enhancing

the contract receipts on the basis of entries of Indian

2 ITA NO. 3274/Del/2013

Overseas Bank, Kurdi and should have not taken the

extra income Rs. 228800.00 over and above determined

in assessment order. When all the receipts of contact are

fully verifiable from T.D.S. certificate issued by the

department. In fact the Ld. CIT Appeal made this addition

without going through the written submission filed by the

Appellant in appeal. Hence the addition of Rs. 228800.00

on the basis of extra contract receipts is totally, wrong,

illegal and unwarranted.

6. The Appellant has explained each and every entry of

Indian Overseas Bank in his written submission and has

also filed the evidences and sources in support of his

contentions. Ld. A.O. has also verified contents of the

written submission in Remand Proceeding. So the

observation of Ld. CIT (APPEAL) that the Appellant has

not produced the relevant evidence to explain the nature

and source of the deposits with Indian Overseas Bank, is

not correct.

In fact the Appellant has explained all the entries of

this bank account. So Ld. CIT Appeal should have not

confirmed the addition of Rs. 2635667.00 on the basis of

entries of Indian Overseas Bank account.

3

ITA NO. 3274/Del/2013

7. That the Ld. CIT Appeal should have not confirmed the

addition of Rs. 179000.00, when this F.D. was not

purchased by the Appellant nor the amount of the F.D.,

after encashment, was received by the Appellant.

Moreover the source of the deposit of F.D. is explained, in

the certificate of the bank. So the Ld. ClT Appeal should

have not confirmed the addition of Rs. 179000.00 in the

appellate order.

8. The income determined in appeal is very- very

excessive and without any basis."

2. The facts narrated by the Revenue authorities are not disputed

by Ld. DR, therefore, need not to repeat here for the sake of

convenience.

3. The assessee filed the present appeal on 23.5.2013 which

came up for hearing before the Bench on 26.11.2013. Assessee

filed his written request for adjournment and the Bench adjourned

the case for 20.5.2014. Both the parties were informed in the Open

Court. On 20.5.2014 again assessee filed an Application for

adjournment and the Bench again adjourned the case for

27.11.2014. On 27.11.2014 again assessee filed the Application for

adjournment and the Bench adjourned the matter for today i.e.

02.6.2015. Today again assessee filed the Application for

4 ITA NO. 3274/Del/2013

adjournment. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of

present case as well as the grounds raised by the assessee, we are

of the view that no useful purpose would be served to adjourn the

case again and again, hence, we reject the adjournment Application.

Therefore, we are deciding the issues in dispute exparate qua

assessee and after hearing the Ld. DR.

4. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

5. We have thoroughly gone through the orders passed by the

Revenue Authorities raised by the assessee and we are of the view

that the assessee has raised 8 grounds of appeal in which mainly

the Assessee challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground

that assessee was not provided proper opportunity of hearing by

the Ld. CIT(A). Assessee further requested that even Ld. CIT(A) has

not supplied the copy of the Remand Report prepared by the AO,

after detailed examination of the accounts and considering the

evidence and material produced by the assessee during the course

of assessment proceedings for which the assessee could not rebut

those material, which is against the principle of natural justice. No

doubt that the assessee has also challenged the impugned order on

merit also. But keeping in view of the order passed by the AO as well

as the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) has not

provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee and decide the

5 ITA NO. 3274/Del/2013

issues in dispute against the assessee, which is contrary to the

principle of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is not

sustainable in the eyes of law. In the interest of justice, we set

aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the

direction to decide the same afresh, under the law, after providing

sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

6. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 02/06/2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

[J.S. REDDY] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date 02/6/2015 "SRBHATNAGAR" Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant -

2. Respondent - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT

TRUE COPY By Order,

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches

6