M/s Aroma Fibre Glass Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur V. ITO, Jamshedpur

ITA 18/RAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2178 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHOUDHARY ORAON
• Assessee Lawyers: S K PODDAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: RANCHI SMC BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 18/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S. AROMA FIBRE GLASS PVT. LTD., NETAJI ROAD, INFRONT OF DURGA PUJA MAIDAN, VIDYAPATI NAGAR, BARIDIH, JAMSHEDPUR. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JAMSHEDPUR PAN/GIR NO. : AADCA3429P (APPELLANT ) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. S.K. PODDAR, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. CHOUDHARY ORAON, DR DATE OF HEARING 08.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08.03.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), DATED 28.10.2015 WHICH PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MANY GROUNDS, THE FIRST GROUND RAISED READ AS UNDER: 1. FOR THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS GROUND RAI SED FOR ALLEGED NON- COMPLIANCE WHICH WAS DUE TO NOTICES ISSUED IN WRONG ADDRESS. NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE RETURN FILED . 2. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER S ECTION 144 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) BY MAKING ESTIM ATED ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/- WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY DETAILS WHATSOEVE R. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, 2 ITA NO.18/RAN/2016 AY: 2006-07 LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE GI VEN TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ITAT. 3. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THO UGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED THAT SEVERAL NOTICES HAVE BEEN SENT TO TH E ASSESSEE BUT NONE WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED AS THE SAME WERE SENT TO THE OLD ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD NOT DISCUSSED ANYTHING WHATSOEVER REGARDING NATURE OF ADDITION HE WAS PROP OSING AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS AFFIRMED THE SAME WITHOUT DISCUSSING ANYTHING A BOUT THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION. 5. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, I FIND THAT THE ISS UE RAISED IN THE APPEAL NEEDS TO BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT DISCUSSING ANYTHING REGARD ING THE NATURE OF ADDITION. LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT DI SCUSSING UPON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT EVEN ADMINISTRATIV E ORDERS HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, I R EMIT THIS ISSUE IN THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING ASSESSEE AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH MARCH, 2016. SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 8 TH MARCH, 2016. RAJESH, SR.PS/- 3 ITA NO.18/RAN/2016 AY: 2006-07 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) - 5. THE DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. P.S., ITAT, RANCHI