Shri Anand Biyani, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2038/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 203820114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANURADHA MISRA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK SURANA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2038/DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) SHRI ANAND BIYANI, PROP. M/S DELHI MARKETING CO., 75, SABHARWAL MARKET, TOLIAWALI GALI, SADAR BAZAR, DELHI-110006. P AN-AAHPB7676E (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-39(1), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. ASHOK SURANA, CA RESPONDENT BY SMT. ANURADHA MISRA, CIT DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2013 OF CIT(A)-XXVIII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2009-10 A SSESSMENT YEAR. THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO U/S 143(3) PROCEEDINGS WHI CH HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAVE BEEN CHALLENG ED BY THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS GROUNDS ON MERITS, HOWEVER THE PARTIES WERE HEARD ONLY IN REGARD TO GROUND NO-1.1 WHICH READS AS UNDER :- 1.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSING EX-PARTE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING PROPER & REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD. 2. REFERRING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER LD. AR, SH. ASHO K SURANA, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST THAT THE I SSUE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE AO AS ADMITTEDLY AN EX-PARTE ORDER WAS PASSED WITH OUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE AS THE NOTICE STATED TO HAVE BEEN SENT WAS NEVER RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT DR REFERRING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUBMITTED TH AT NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO I.T.A .NO.-2038/DEL/2013 2 THE ASSESSEE ON 08.05.2012 AND 18.09.2012 AND THE A SSESSEE CHOOSE TO REMAIN UNREPRESENTED, ACCORDINGLY THE CIT(A) HAD NO ALTER NATIVE BUT TO PASS THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORE-MENTIONE D PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY THE PARTI ES BEFORE THE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE FACE OF THE STATEMENT G IVEN BY THE LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEES REQUEST DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. WE HAVE ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT TH AT NO DOUBT THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAKES A MENTION THAT NOTICES WERE ISSUED ON T WO SPECIFIC DATES HOWEVER IT IS SILENT ON THE ASPECT OF THE MODE AND MANNER IN W HICH THE NOTICES WERE SENT. ACCORDINGLY IN THE INTERESTS OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE , WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE TO THE CIT(A) WI TH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESS EE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. AS NOTED, THE LD. AR UNDERTAKES TH AT THE ASSESSEE SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY STANDS ALLOWED FOR THE STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. 3. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH OF OCTOBER 2013. SD/- SD/- (R.S.SYAL) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28/10/2013 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGI STRAR ITAT NEW DELHI