JAGDISHCHANDER KAPUR, NAVI MUMBAI V. ITO-WD 22(3)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 1616/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3864 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K L KANAK
• Assessee Lawyers: ARACKAL ABITHA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH , MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, J UDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO . 1616 /MUM/201 5 (A.Y:2009 - 10 ) JAGDISHCHANDER KAPUR, 10A, NATRAJ CHS. LTD., PLOT NO.15, SECTOR - 4, SANPADA, NAVI MUMBAI PIN 400 705 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 22(3)(2 ) , 3 RD FLOOR, 6 TH TOWER, VASHI, VASHI RAILWAY STATION COMPLEX, NAVI MUMBAI 400 703 PAN: AFZPK 1805 R APPELLANT .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY .. MS. ARACKAL ABITHA, AR RESPONDENT BY .. SHRI K. L. KANAK, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING . . 11 - 08 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT .. 11 - 08 - 2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH , JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT ( A) - 33 , MUMBAI IN APPEAL NO. CIT ( A) - 33 / IT / 374 / 13 - 14 DATED 3 1 - 1 2 - 2014 . ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO - 22(3 )(2 ), MUMBAI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 10 U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 04 - 03 - 2013. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED FROM THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS EX - PARTE ORDER AND THE CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR NON - ATTENDANCE BY APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL.). ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE MS. ARACKAL ABITHA WHO IS A C HARTERED ACCOUNTANCY STUDENT OF FINAL YEAR STATED THAT THE CIT (A) CANNOT APPLY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. AND HE HA S TO PASS ORDERS ON MERIT. ON QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LEARNED SR. DR ONLY REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER CAN BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES , I AM OF THE VIEW THAT WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS TO CONSIDER ALL THE POINTS IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE ITA NO. 1616 /MUM/20 1 5 2 AND ALSO HAS TO RECORD THE REASONS AS TO WHY THE CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN REJECTED OR ACCEPTED. HERE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL BY ITS ORDER DID NOT AT ALL CONSIDER THE POINTS IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE WITH OUT DISCUSSING THE ISSUE RAISED AND WITHOUT RECORDING THE REASONS AS TO WHY THE CONTENTIONS HA VE BEEN REJECTED OR ACCEPTED, THE APPEAL CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OFF IN A MOST CASUAL AND CAVILER MANNER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SAME IS THE SITUATION. THEREFORE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE C IT (A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND FOR PASSING A SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER. IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 - 08 - 2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI MUMBAI, DATED: 11 - 08 - 2016 LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/SR.PS SD/ - MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// ITA NO. 1616 /MUM/20 1 5 3 SR.NO. PARTICULARS DATE INITIALS PERSON CONCERNED 1 DICTATION GIVEN ON 11/8/16 LK DEKA 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 12/8/16 3 DRAFT PROPOSED/PLA CED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER