M/s. IBD Space Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Indore V. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-II, Bhopal

ITA 209/IND/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2242 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALCHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVENDRA BANSAL
• Keywords: Loose papers; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IBD SPACE INFRASTRUCTURE IT(SS)A NOS.69 TO 72 & 209/IND/2017 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS) A. NOS. 69 TO 72/IND/2017 / A.YS. : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 ITA NO. 209/IND/2017 : A.Y. 2013-14 IBD SPACE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. INDORE PAN AABCI-9280N :: / APPELLANT VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, INDORE :: / RESPONDENT ! ' #$ / ASSESSEE BY SHRI DEVENDRA BANSAL %& ! ' #$ / REVENUE BY SHRI LALCHAND CIT # ' ( ! ) DATE OF HEARING 4 . 5 .2017 *+,- ! ) DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 9 . 5 .2017 / O R D E R PER BENCH THESE APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-3, BHOPAL, DATED 11.1.2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NOS. CIT(A)-E/BPL/IT-303 TO 307/201 5-16 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. IBD SPACE INFRASTRUCTURE IT(SS)A NOS.69 TO 72 & 209/IND/2017 2 2. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APP EALS, WE PROPOSE TO DECIDE THESE APPEALS BY THIS CONSOLIDATE D ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2, WHICH ARE COMMON IN ALL THESE APPEALS, ARE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE-APPELLANT WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AS ALSO IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE APPEALS ON MERITS. 4. IN NUTSHELL, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEAR CH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT) WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMIS ES OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS AT THE PREMISES OF OTHER CONCERNS/BUSINE SS ASSOCIATED ON 30.11.2012 DURING WHICH VARIOUS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, LOOSE PAPERS, ETC. WERE SEIZED AND IMPOUNDED FROM THESE PREMISES. THE ASSESSEE- APPELLANT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND HAS SHOW N INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE, CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPME NT OF ALL TYPES OF LAND AND HOUSING COLONY, ETC. NOTICES U/S 153A OF T HE ACT WERE ISSUED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2012-13 IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURNS OF INCOME. AFTER D ETAILED DISCUSSION IBD SPACE INFRASTRUCTURE IT(SS)A NOS.69 TO 72 & 209/IND/2017 3 AS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DETECTED DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, ADDED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS , UNDER CONSIDERATION, AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER S. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSEE -APPELLANT PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ISSUED VAR IOUS NOTICES FOR HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NO T COMPLY WITH THE SAME AND AS SUCH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BECAUSE OF THE REASONS BEYOND ITS CONTROL, THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES OF HEARING ISSUED BY THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HE, THEREFORE, HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED ONE MORE O PPORTUNITY TO IBD SPACE INFRASTRUCTURE IT(SS)A NOS.69 TO 72 & 209/IND/2017 4 REPRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUN ITY HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH, THE ASSE SSEE-APPELLANT HAS NO CASE FOR GRANT OF ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND H AVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN INAS MUCH AS 6 OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT TO REPRESEN T ITS CASE BUT THE ASSESSEE UTTERLY FAILED TO AVAIL THE SAME. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT HAS MADE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT ON TWO OCCASIONS BUT BOTH THE APPLICATIONS FOR ADJOURNMENT WERE FILED AFTER THE DATE OF HEARING. IN SUCH A SCENARIO, THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS LEFT WITH NO CHOICE BUT TO PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS WERE D ECIDED AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DISMISSED THE SAME. HOWEVER, IT IS A WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE THAT NO-BODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD. PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL R EQUIRES THAT IBD SPACE INFRASTRUCTURE IT(SS)A NOS.69 TO 72 & 209/IND/2017 5 SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD SHOULD BE PRO VIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE AGAINST IT. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SINCE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DECIDED THE MATTER WITHOUT HEARING TH E ASSESSEES IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, THESE APPEALS NEED TO BE RESTORED TO HIS FILE FOR DECIDIN G THE SAME AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASS ESSEES. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTI CE AND EQUITY, RESTORE THESE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITH THE DIRECTION TO PROVIDE THE ASSESSE E-APPELLANT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THEN TO DECIDE THE APPEALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AT THE SAME TIME, WE ALSO DIR ECT THE ASSESSEE- APPELLANT TO REMAIN PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND NOT TO SEE K UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 8. SINCE WE HAVE RESTORED THE ENTIRE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AS PER THE DI RECTIONS GIVEN ABOVE, OTHER GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT BECOM E ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND WE ARE NOT ADJUDICATING THEM. IBD SPACE INFRASTRUCTURE IT(SS)A NOS.69 TO 72 & 209/IND/2017 6 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 09 TH MAY, 2017. SD/- SD/- $) #& #& (O.P.MEENA) (C.M. GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER MAY 09, 2017 DN/