Sh Mukul Dev Tayal, Hisar V. ACIT, Hisar

ITA 1670/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3745 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI TANEJA; TARUN KHUR ANA
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI, JM & SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM I.T. A. NO.1670/DEL OF 2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 SHRI MUKUL DEV TAYAL, VS ACIT, HISSAR. C/O M/S TAYAL SONS LTD., KATH MANDI ROAD, HISSAR. PAN: ADAPT9212E APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: S/SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA & TARUN KHUR ANA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N.K. CHAND, SR. DR ORDER PER C.L. SETHI, JM: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE EX PARTE ORDER DATED 9.3.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) I N THE MATTER OF AN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961 (THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. A PRELIMINARY GROUND HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSES SEE BY AGITATING THAT CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING THE EX PARTE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSES SEE, AND THEN IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.15 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS BROTHER SHRI ATUL DEV TAYAL. 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE CAREFULL Y GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. ON PERUSAL OF LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER, IT APPEARS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) FIXED THE APPEAL FOR HEARING FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 9.12.2009, WHICH WAS ADJOURNED TO 4.1.2010 AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL O N THE GROUND THAT HE WAS BUSY IN TIME BARRING ASSESSMENT. ON 4.1.2010, ASSE SSEE AGAIN FILED AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE NECE SSARY DOCUMENTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE, WHICH WOULD TAKE ABOUT 15 DAYS TIME TO COLLECT THE SAME. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ADJOURNMENT FIXING T HE APPEAL ON 9.3.2010 SAYING THAT A FINAL OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GIVEN. ON 9.3.2010, A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED BY LEARNED CIT(A) BUT SAME WAS REJECTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY SAYING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT STATED ANY CAUSE FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER STATED THA T FURTHER ADJOURNMENT COULD NOT BE ALLOWED, AS ALREADY SUFFICIENT OPPORTU NITY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO NEGLIGENCE OR INACTI ON ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT APPEARING ON 9.3.2010. IT IS NOT I N DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST TO ADJOURN THE HEARING ON 9.3.2010 BUT TH AT WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) BY OBSERVING THAT NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE HAS BE EN GIVEN FOR SEEKING 3 ADJOURNMENT, AND, MOREOVER, ALREADY SUFFICIENT TIME HAS BEEN GRANTED. IN THIS CASE, THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 15.7.2009, AND I T HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2010. FOR THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE GRANTED ONE MORE ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT FOR BY THE ASSESSEE ON 9.3.2010 GIVING SOME MORE TIME TO THE ASSESSEE TO A PPEAR BEFORE HIM, AND EXPLAIN THE MATTER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE HAS GIVEN AN UNDERTAKING THAT IN CASE THE MATTER IS RESTORED BAC K TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A), HE WILL TAKE UTMOST CARE TO APPEAR BEFORE H IM AND TO COOPERATE WITH LEARNED CIT(A) INDISPOSING THE APPEAL AT THE EARLIE ST. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR OBJECTED BY CONTENDING THAT CI T(A) HAS ALREADY GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO THE ASSESSEE, AND NO MORE OPPORT UNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE OR IN ACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT APPEARING BEFORE LD. CIT(A). KEEPI NG IN VIEW THAT LET THIS APPEAL BE DECIDED AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE RELEVAN T FACTS AND EVIDENCES SO THAT THE MATTER CAN BE DECIDED IN ITS RIGHT AND COR RECT PERSPECTIVE BY CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES, WE RESTORE THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR HIS FRESH DISPOSAL AFTER PROVIDING O NE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT HIS SUBMISSIONS. IN THIS REGARD , WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITHIN THREE MONTHS FR OM THE END OF THE MONTH 4 IN WHICH THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND SHALL SUBMIT ALL THE DETAILS AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE, AND THEN SEEK NECESSARY INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE LD. CIT(A) AS TO THE FINAL DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT INDULGE INTO ANY DILATORY TACTICS BY SEEKING UNNECESSARY AND UNWARRA NTED ADJOURNMENTS. THE ASSESSEE SHALL COOPERATE WITH THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DISPOSING OF THIS APPEAL AT THE EARLIEST. THE ASSESSEE SHALL ALSO COMPLY WI TH ALL THE DIRECTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS THAT MAY BE ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A) F OR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS T REATED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 15 TH JUNE, 2010 IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING WAS OVER. (B.C. MEENA) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: JUNE, 2010 VIJAY 5 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A), ROHTAK 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR