Raju Pandurang Dhoble, Nagpur V. Income Tax Officer ,Ward 2(1), Nagpur

ITA 160/NAG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 16023914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KANE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Right to appeal
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , ( - ), IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENC H, (E-COURT), MUMBAI . . , !' , #$% , $& '( BEFORE SHRI H L KARWA, PRESIDENT, & SHRI RAJENDRA, AM ./ITA NO.160/NAG/2013 ( ) * / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) RAJU PANDURANG DHOBLE, C/O MANOJ G MOUYANI, ADVOCATE, 1 ST FLOOR, SUDAMA BHAWAN, NR. SUT MARKET, GANDHIBAGH NAGPUR 440002 PAN :AYJPD8795L VS. THE ITO WARD 2(1) , NAGPUR ( +, /APPELLANT) ( -.+, / RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. MANOJ G MORYANI RESPONDENT BY : MR. NARENDRA KANE DATE OF HEARING : 23.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.01.2014 '$/ / O R D E R PER H L KARWA, PRESIDENT : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-16, MUMBAI CAMP : NAGPUR, DATED 08.03.2013, RELATING TO A.Y. 2006-07. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-8, MUMBAI H OLDING CONCURRENT 2 ITA NO.160/NAG/2013 AY:2006-07 JURISDICTION OF CITA)-I, NAGPUR U/S. 263 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961, IS ILLEGAL, INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTICED DATED 26/2/2013 AND CASE IS FIXED HEARING ON 08/03/2013, PASSING OF EX- PARTE ORDER B CIT(A)-6, MUMBAI HOLDING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF CIT(A)-I, NAGPUR IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 3. THE CIT(A)-6, MUMBAI HOLDING CONCURRENT JURISDIC TION OF CIT(A)-I, NAGPUR ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.70,95,297/- WITHOUT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO BE BEIN G HEARD, THEREFORE ORDER PASSED IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESS IVE. 4. THE CIT(A)-6, MUMBAI HOLDING CONCURRENT JURISDIC TION OF CIT(A)-I, NAGPUR HAS NOT PROVIDED REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD BEFORE PASSING EX-PARTE ORDER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRA NTED LAST ADJOURNMENT ON 17.12.2012 AND WITHOUT GIVING NOTICE ON 26/02/20 13 PASSED EX-PARTE ORDER, THEREFORE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED IS UNJUSTIFI ED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 5. THE CIT(A)-6, MUMBAI HOLDING CONCURRENT JURISDICTIO N OF CIT(A)-I, NAGPUR ERRED IN OBSERVING/RECORDING VARIOUS OBSERVA TIONS CONTRARY TO EVIDENCE ON RECORD THEREFORE ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGA L, INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 6. THE APPELLANT SEEKS PERMISSION TO ADD ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL OR AMEND OR ALTER THE AFORESAID GROUND OF APPEAL. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, SHRI MORYANI THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHO UT AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED LAST ADJOURNMENT ON 17.12.2012 AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY FU RTHER NOTICE ON 26.12.2013 PASSED EXPARTE ORDER, WHICH IS BAD IN LAW, AND, THE REFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT THERE IS MERIT IN THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF SHRI MORYANI, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT AFFORDED ADEQUATE O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING HIS APPEAL. IT IS WELL SE TTLED LAW THAT A RIGHT OF APPEAL WHEREVER CONFERRED INCLUDES A RIGHT OF BEING AFFORD ED AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LANGUAGE CONFERRING SUCH RIGHT. THAT IS A PART AND PARCEL OF THE 3 ITA NO.160/NAG/2013 AY:2006-07 PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WHERE AN AUTHORITY I S REQUIRED TO ACT IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITY, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO GIVE THE APPELLANT AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN TOTO AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO D ECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE E-COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (H L KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DT : 23 RD JANUARY, 2014 SA COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE C.I.T, CONCERNED 4. THE CIT (A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR, NAGPUR BENCH BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI