M/s. Arihant Enterprise, Vapi V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1, Vapi

ITA 1060/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1556 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Keywords: Non passing of speaking order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMEDABAD , BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NO.1060/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) M/S. ARIHANT ENTERPRISE ASOPALAV COMPLEX, CHHARWADA ROAD, VAPI (E)-396191 APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-1, VAPI RESPONDENT PAN: AAKGS8386P /BY APPELLANT : SHRI HARDIK VORA, A.R. /BY RESPONDENT :SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 18.05.2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.05.2016 ORDER ITA NO.1060/AHD/12 A.Y. 06-07 [M/S. ARIHANT ENTERPRISE VS. ITO] PAGE 2 PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VALSAD, DATED 23.02.2011 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 250 (6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS.13,54,103/- U/S. 80IB(10) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT CIT(A ) HAS PASSED EX PARTE NON SPEAKING ORDER WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ON OTHER HAND, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN SPITE OF THE NOTICES. TAKING ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INTO CONSIDERATI ON, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT(A) HAS PASSED A NON-SPEAKING ORDE R WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, APATHY TOWAR DS THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES CANNOT BE ENCO URAGED. SO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO HIM WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE T HE SAME AS PER FACT AND LAW AND AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO ITA NO.1060/AHD/12 A.Y. 06-07 [M/S. ARIHANT ENTERPRISE VS. ITO] PAGE 3 THE ASSESSEE AND SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COST OF RS.5 ,000/- TO BE PAID IN THE LEGAL AID OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT . 3. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 19 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R AHMEDABAD: DATED 19/05/2016 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE $ %&%'( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4 )- / CIT (A) ,-./00'(1 '( 123& / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 4/5678 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 1 / 2% '( 123&