Alchemist Hospitals Limited, Chandigarh V. ACIT, CC 20, New Delhi

ITA 12/DEL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2816 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ISHTIYAQUE AHMED
• Section: 15; 73; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.12/DEL/2022 Assessment Year 2013-14 Alchemist Hospitals Ltd., C/o Parikshit Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant, H. No.1238, Sector 22B, Chandigarh. v. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AABCK0501G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Parikshit Agarwal, CA. Respondent by: Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 09 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 09 05 2022 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: Th e cap tio n ed ap peal h as b een filed at th e in s tan ce o f th e Assessee ag a in st t h e o rd er o f th e C o mmiss io n er o f In co me T ax (Ap p eals)-XXXI, Delh i (‘CIT(A)’ in sh o rt) d ated 3 0 .1 1 .2021 arisin g fro m th e a ssess men t o rd er d ated 0 7 .0 2 .2 01 9 p assed b y the Assessin g Offi cer (AO) un d er Sectio n 1 5 3A/1 4 3(3 ) o f t h e In co me Tax Act, 1 9 6 1 (th e Act) co n cern in g AY 2 0 13 -14 . 2 . Wh en th e mat ter was cal led fo r h ea rin g , th e ld . co u n sel fo r th e assesse e at th e o u tset referred to p arag rap h 4 o f th e firs t ap p ella te o rd er an d p o in ted o u t th at th e co u n sel o f th e assess ee, Sh ri Mo h it Gu p ta, CA so u g h t ad jo u rn men t in p u rsu ance o f th e n o tice d at ed 2 7 .0 3 .2 01 9 issu ed b y th e CIT(A). Simi larly , I.T.A. No.12/Del/2022 2 ad jo u rn men t le tt e rs were g iv en on th e su b seq u en t d ates an d accep t ed b y th e CI T(A). Ho wev er, th e ld . co u n sel for t h e assesse e b ecame d is in teres t ed an d o mit ted to co mp ly wi th th e n o tice o f h earin g with o u t the k n owled g e o f the assessee . Th e in terv en in g p erio d was also a Co v id -1 9 p erio d resu lt in g in d isarray an d non co mp li an ce. I t was th u s su b mit ted th at a p ed an t ic view b e sh u n n ed an d a b en ign v iew b e tak en . It was n ex t su b mitt ed th at th e su b stan tiv e issu e i n v o lv ed in th e p resen t c ase is co v e red b y th e d ecisio n o f th e Ho n ’b le Delh i Hig h Co u rt in th e case o f CIT vs. Ka b u l Ch a wla as rep o rted in 38 0 ITR 5 73 (Del). As th e assess men t was fra med u n d er Sect io n 1 5 3 A with o u t any in cri min a tin g mat eria l in a co n cl u d ed assessmen t, un d er th e circu ms tan ce s, th e re was n o reaso n fo r th e assesse e to n o t att en d th e p ro ceed in g s b efo re th e CIT(A) at it s o wn p eril . It was su b mit ted th at a n ew co u n sel h as s in ce b een ap p o in ted to co mp ly with th e p ro ceed in g s. Un d er th e circ u mstan c es, it was co n ten d ed th at b en ig n v iew be tak en in th e ma t t er to p rev en t th e mi scarri ag e o f ju st ice an d ex -p arte o rd er o f th e CIT(A) b e can cell ed and g riev an ce raised i n its ap p eal may b e resto red to th e fi le o f th e CIT(A) fo r d ecis io n o n meri ts in a cco rd an ce with law. 3 . Ld . DR fo r th e Rev en u e reli ed u p o n th e o rd er o f th e CI T(A). 4 . We h av e d isp assio n ately co n sid ered th e riv al su bmi ssio n s an d p eru sed th e ma teri al av ai lab l e o n reco rd . It is an ad mi t ted p o sitio n th at in i t i ally o n so me o ccasio n s, th e co u nsel fo r th e assesse e ap p lied fo r ad jo u rn men t, i n resp on se to the n o tice o f h earin g b efo re th e ld . CIT(A). Ho wev er, th ereafter n o co mp li an ce was mad e n o r an y ad jo u rn men t was so u g h t. Th e C IT(A) h as acco rd in g ly p ro ceed ed with th e ap p eal o f th e ass esse e ex -p arte I.T.A. No.12/Del/2022 3 an d co n firmed th e act io n o f th e Asses sin g Officer. A t th is st ag e, it may b e p er tin en t t o o b serv e th at a fi ery p an d emic bey o n d h u man co mp reh en sio n h ad en g u lfed th e n atio n an d a catas tro p h ic situ a tio n was in v o g u e d u e to o u tb reak o f Co v id -1 9 . It i s co mmo n k n owled g e th at co n seq u en t n atio n wid e lo ck d o wn h as resu lted in serio u s d isru p tio n in th e bu sin ess cy cle o f th e tax p ay ers. Th e assesse e h as cit ed mi tig a tin g reaso n s fo r n o n attend an ce an d h as also tri ed to ad d ress o n factu al ma tr ix . Un d er th e circu mstan c es, we fin d su b stan tia l fo rce in th e p le a o f th e assessee in sett in g asid e th e o rd er o f th e CIT(A) an d resto re th e issu e in v o lv ed to th e fi le o f th e CIT(A) fo r ad ju d icat io n o n merits in acco rd an ce with law after g iv in g p ro p er o pp o rtun it y to th e assessee to p rev en t mi scarri ag e o f n at u ral ju s tic e. We o rd er acco rd in g ly . 5 . In th e resu lt, th e ap p eal o f th e a ssessee is a llo we d fo r sta tis ti ca l p u rp o ses. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09/05/2022. Sd/- Sd/- [NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY] [PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: /05/2022 Prabhat