M/s. Supertech Constructions (P) Ltd., Noida V. ACIT, Meerut

ITA 1887/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6601 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAJANAND MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK GA NDHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI K.D.RANJAN, AM BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI K.D.RANJAN, AM BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI K.D.RANJAN, AM BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI K.D.RANJAN, AM ITA NOS.1886/DEL/2011 & 1887/DEL/2011 ITA NOS.1886/DEL/2011 & 1887/DEL/2011 ITA NOS.1886/DEL/2011 & 1887/DEL/2011 ITA NOS.1886/DEL/2011 & 1887/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005- -- -06 & 2006 06 & 2006 06 & 2006 06 & 2006- -- -07 0707 07 M/S SUPERTECH CONSTRUCTIONS M/S SUPERTECH CONSTRUCTIONS M/S SUPERTECH CONSTRUCTIONS M/S SUPERTECH CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD., (P) LTD., (P) LTD., (P) LTD., B BB B- -- -28, 29 IIIRD FLOOR 28, 29 IIIRD FLOOR 28, 29 IIIRD FLOOR 28, 29 IIIRD FLOOR, ,, , SECTOR SECTOR SECTOR SECTOR- -- -58, 58, 58, 58, NOIDA. NOIDA. NOIDA. NOIDA. PAN NO.AABCS0646N. PAN NO.AABCS0646N. PAN NO.AABCS0646N. PAN NO.AABCS0646N. VS. VS. VS. VS. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHOK GANDHI, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GAJANAND MEENA, CIT-DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER R.P.TOLAN PER R.P.TOLAN PER R.P.TOLAN PER R.P.TOLANI, JM : I, JM : I, JM : I, JM : THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING VARIOUS ADDITIONS ON MERITS ON THE GROUND THAT LEARNED CIT( A) WENT WRONG ON FACTS AND IN LAW TO DECIDE AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISM ISS THE APPEALS WITHOUT SERVING PROPER NOTICE UPON THE ASSESSEE THE REBY WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSE E. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS TH AT THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DECIDED EX-PARTE ON SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 5. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENT OF FACTS. NO THING WORTHWHILE IS MENTIONED THEREIN WHICH WOULD LEAD ME TO UNDERSTAND THE GRIEVANCES ARISING THROUGH THE GROUN DS OF APPEAL. ALTHOUGH A WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS BEEN PLA CED ON RECORD, IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPLANATION OF THE CONTEN TIONS THEREIN AND THE VERIFICATION OF FACTS THROUGH DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE, I DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE AO. EVEN THOUGH I AM NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE SEPARATE REASONS FOR AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO AS PER 2 THE RATIO OF THE JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF ANIL GOEL VS. CIT(A) & ANOTHER (2008), 306 ITR 212 (P&H), I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AO. I FIND THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH APPLICATION OF MIND. THE AOS ORDER IS, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER REFERS TO VARIOUS LE TTERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) POINTING OUT THAT CONSEQ UENT TO SEARCHES, VARIOUS ISSUES WERE YET TO BE DECIDED AND THE CASES WERE PENDING BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. INSTEAD, LEARNED CIT(A), WITHOUT GOING INTO THESE ASPECTS BY SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS, D ECIDED THE ASSESSEES APPEALS EX-PARTE. 4. THE LEARNED DR IS HEARD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE PER USED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE ORDER OF LEA RNED CIT(A) AND ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS APPLYING FOR ADJOURNMENTS GIVING DETAILED REASONS THERE FOR. IN CASE THE ASSESSEES ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS GIVING PROPER REASONS ARE REFUSED, THEN A REASONED ORDER IS TO BE PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A ) INDICATING AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEES REQUEST WAS NOT CREDITWORTHY. 6. EVEN IN THE CASE OF EX-PARTE FIRST APPEAL ORDER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS MANDATED BY LAW TO PASS A REASONED ORDER ON MERI TS. WE FIND THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NEITHER ADVERTED TO ASSESSEES A DJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS GIVING VARIOUS REASONS NOR HAS DECIDED THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS IN SPEAKING TERMS. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE A RE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE APPEALS BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED C IT(A). THE ASSESSEES REASONS FOR DELAYING THE HEARING MUST BE OVER BY TH IS TIME. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) A ND RESTORE THE APPEALS BACK TO HIS FILE TO DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW. 3 THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT RECOURSE TO UNREASONABLE AP PLICATIONS FOR ADJOURNMENT. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 15 TH JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (K.D.RANJAN) (K.D.RANJAN) (K.D.RANJAN) (K.D.RANJAN) (R.P.TOLANI) (R.P.TOLANI) (R.P.TOLANI) (R.P.TOLANI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 15.06.2011. VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR