Mr. Gopal Dixit, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1289/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7480 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ K CHOPRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.- 1289/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2003-04) GOPAL DIXIT K- 68, KIRTI NAGAR NEW DELHI AAKPD7319K (APPELLANT) VS ACIT CIRCLE-12(1) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. MANOJ K. CHOPRA, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILIN G THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 4/1/2014 PASSED BY CIT (A)-4, NEW DELHI , PERTAINING TO 2003-04 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. NO ONE WAS PRES ENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD IT WAS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO PROCEED WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL EX-P ARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT AFTER HEARING THE LD. SR. DR. 2. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT AGGRIEVED B Y THE PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) DATED 30 TH MARCH 2012 IMPOSING PENALTY RS. 3,75,000/-, THE AS SESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) REJE CTED THE APPEAL HOLDING THAT THE ERSTWHILE CIT(A) HAD ALREADY PROVIDED VARIOUS OPPOR TUNITIES. HE ALSO HELD THAT HIS ENDEAVOURS ALSO MET THE SAME FATE AS AFTER SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS A FEW TIMES NONE DATE OF HEARING 05.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.06.2016 ITA NO. 1289/DEL/2016 PAGE 2 OF 3 APPEARED ON 9/11/2015 ALSO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED HOLDING AS UNDER: NONE APPEARED EVEN ON 9/11/2015 AND IT IS VERY CLE AR THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS CASE. ONE MR. SU BHASH JHA HAS APPEARED SO MANY TIMES BUT ONLY WITH THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICA TIONS. I DISMISS THE APPEAL BECAUSE OF THE CONTINUED NON-COMPLIANCE BY T HE APPELLANT. 3. ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FINDING, WE FIND THAT THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AND THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) DOES NOT MEET THE STATUTORY MANDATE AS SET OUT IN SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 25 0. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE:- 250. (1) . (2) (3) (4) . (5) . (6) THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DISPOS ING OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASON FOR THE DECISION. (6A)............................................... .................... 3.1. THE SPECIFIC PROVISION REQUIRES THE FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY TO SET OUT POINTS FOR DETERMINATION AND THE DECISION THEREON SUPPORTED BY REASONS FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION. THE SAID MANDATORY EXERC ISE IS FOUND TO BE NOT FULFILLED IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. ACCORDI NGLY HOLDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIOLATIVE OF THE STATUTORY MANDATE IT IS SET ASIDE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO MAKE GOOD THE STATUTORY DEFICIT. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER, A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE ASS ESSEE. WHILE SO DIRECTING IT IS HOPED THAT THE OPPORTUNITY SO PROVIDED IS NOT ABUSE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS ITA NO. 1289/DEL/2016 PAGE 3 OF 3 UTILIZED IN GOOD FAITH AS FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH OF JUNE 2016. SD/- SD/- (L. P. SAHU) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER *R. NAHEED /AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSI STANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI