Rajendra Ramchandra Indrale, Latur V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1823/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 182324514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S NAIK
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1821 TO 1824/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10) RAJENDRA RAMCHANDRA INDRALE, NEAR VITHAL RUKMINI MANDIR, KRUPA SADAN ROAD, VEER SAWARKAR LANE, LATUR 413512 .. APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-3(3), LATUR .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI P.S. NAIK DATE OF HEARING : 16-09-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-09-2014 ORDER PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM : THIS BATCH OF 4 APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR THE A.YRS. 2008- 09 AND 2009-10. OUT OF 4 APPEALS, 2 APPEALS ARE AR ISING FROM THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENTS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER U/S.144 OF THE I.T. ACT AND 2 APPEALS ARE ARISING FROM THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUND WHICH IS COMMON IN ALL T HE APPEALS : 1. SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE FROM APPEARING BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) MAY PLEASE BE SET-ASIDE AND THE MATTER MAY PLEASE BE RE STORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT DE NOVO AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLA NT. 2. THESE APPEALS ARE FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY, I.E. 16-09-2014. WHEN THESE CASES WERE TAKEN FOR HEARING, THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE IS PRESENT BUT NONE IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY APPL ICATION FOR 2 ADJOURNMENT IN THESE APPEALS. FROM THE GROUNDS TAK EN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ONLY PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT A LL THE MATTERS SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AS THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FROM APPEARING BEFORE HIM AND THERE W AS A REASONABLE CAUSE. 3. FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS SOLD SOME LANDS AND THERE WAS SOME TAX EVASION PETITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEPARTMENT. ON THE BASIS OF THE AN ONYMOUS PETITION, ENQUIRIES WERE MADE WITH THE SUB-REGISTRAR, LATUR A ND ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SUB-REGISTRAR, LAT UR THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED NOTICES U/S.148 OF THE ACT FOR THE A.YRS . 2008-09 AND 2009-10. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN NOR RESPONDED TO THE NOTICES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, T HEREFORE, PASSED BEST JUDGEMENT EXPARTE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE A. YRS. 2008-09 AND 2009-10. SAME WAY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO PASSED PENALTY ORDERS EXPARTE AS ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE N OTICES. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AS WELL A S THE PENALTY ORDERS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) BUT AS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE DID NOT EVEN RESPOND TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE L D.CIT(A). SO THE LD.CIT(A) AGAIN DISMISSED ALL THE APPEALS FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, DELHI IN THE CA SE OF MULTI PLAN INDIA PVT. LTD., REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 AS WELL AS THE DE CISION OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT REPORTED IN 213 ITR 480. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FO R THE REVENUE. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF TH E I.T. ACT, THE LD.CIT(A) IS DUTY BOUND TO DISPOSE ALL THE APPEALS BY DETERMINING ALL THE POINTS BY GIVING REASONS AND HE CANNOT TAKE SHE LTER OF THE SHORTCUT BY MERELY SAYING THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTE RESTED IN 3 PROSECUTING THE APPEALS. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE IS N OT PRESENT OR DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), IN SUCH SITUATION ALSO, THE LD.CIT(A) SHOULD DISPOSE OFF THE APPEALS ON MERIT ADJUDICATIN G ALL THE GROUNDS AND THE ISSUES AS PER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. INFACT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CI T(A) BUT TO AVOID MULTIPLICITY OF THE LITIGATION, WE CONSIDER IT FIT TO RESTORE ALL THE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJU DICATION AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO PASSED THE BEST JUDGEMEN T ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS THE PENALTY ORDERS EXPARTE. WE ACCORDINGLY , SET-ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A), AURANGABAD IN ALL THE FOUR APPEALS AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO DETERMINATION. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO COOPERATE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ATTENDING BEFORE HIM FOR COMP LETION OF THE ASSESSMENTS. IF THERE IS ANY CHANGE IN THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE, HE SHOULD INTIMATE THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE COPY OF THIS ORDER. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD GIVE AN OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEN TO DISPOSE OFF THE MATTERS . ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 IS ALLOWED AND ALL OTHER GROUNDS ARE AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (G.S.PANNU) (R.S. PADV EKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER PUNE DATED:17 TH SEPTEMBER 2014 SATISH 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT(A), AURANGABAD 4. CIT, AURANGABAD 5. THE D.R, B PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE