MAHESH S. AGARWAL, MUMBAI V. DCIT 15(1), MUMBAI

ITA 100/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4946 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT, AND SHRI N.K.BILL AIYA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 100/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01) MAHESH S. AGARWAL, ROOM NO.28, 2 ND FLOOR, 89, RAMESH BHAWAN, TAMBAKANTA, MUMBAI-400003 / VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-15(1), MUMBAI. !' $ ./ PAN : AABPA9731B ( '% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &''% / RESPONDENT ) '% ( ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE &''% ( ) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AARSI PRASAD ( *$ / DATE OF HEARING : 16-09-2013 +, ( *$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16-09-2013 -. / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- 26, MUMBAI, DATED 11.11.2009 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2000 -01. 2. THE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SUMMARIZED TO THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OP PORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE CIT(A) DID NOT ALLOW ANY OPPORTUNITY TO JUSTIFY THE DELAY IN FILIN G OF THE APPEAL. PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE SHOW THAT THE DATE OF THE INSTITU TION OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS 11.11.2009. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) IS DATED 11.11.2009 2 ITA NO.100/MUM/2010 MAHESH S. AGARWAL WHICH MEANS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER ON THE VERY SAME DAY ON WHICH THE APPEAL WAS FILED. THOUGH THE CIT(A) OBSE RVED THAT THE APPEAL IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION BUT AT THE SAME TIM E IT APPEARS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSE E TO JUSTIFY THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL NOR THE CIT(A) HAS AFFORDED ANY O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO DEFEND HIMSELF. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT NO ONE SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD, THAT BEING BASIC PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUST ICE. 3. WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN RESTORING THIS MATTER B ACK TO THE FILES OF THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE APPEA L AFRESH AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE AND AFTER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHENEVER SUCH O PPORTUNITY IS GIVEN TO HIM. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/09/201 3 -. ( +, $ /- 16/09/2013 , , ( 0 SD/- (H.L.KARWA) SD/- (N.K.BILLAIYA) HONBLE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /- /DATED : 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. SHEKHAR. P.S. -. -. -. -. ( (( ( &*12 &*12 &*12 &*12 32 * 32 * 32 * 32 * / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '% / THE APPELLANT 2. &''% / THE RESPONDENT. 3 ITA NO.100/MUM/2010 MAHESH S. AGARWAL 3. 4 ( ) / THE CIT- , MUMBAI. 4. 4 / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 250 &* , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 06 7 / GUARD FILE. -. -. -. -. / BY ORDER, '2* &* //TRUE COPY// 8 88 8 / 9 9 9 9 : : : : (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI