M/s STI (India) Ltd., Indore V. THE ACIT-5(1), Indore

ITA 224/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5802 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R VARSHANE
• Assessee Lawyers: S S SOLANKI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/S. STI (INDIA) LIMITED, INDORE. PAN: AAECS3348C VS. ACIT, 5(1), INDORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANTS BY SHRI S.S. SOLANKI, C. A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI R. VARSHANE, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 23.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23.08.2016 O R D E R PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMEBR: THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- II,INDORE, [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] ALL DATED 3 1.12.2015 AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010 -11 AS AGAINST APPEAL DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS T HE ACT) DATED I.T.A. NOS.223 TO 225/IND/2016 A.YS.2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 STI INDIA LIMITED VS. ACIT, INDORE I.T.A.NOS. 223 TO 225/IND/2016 PAGE 2 OF 4 24.12.2009, 22.12.2010 AND 20.03.2013 OF ACIT, 5(1) , INDORE [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO]. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THESE APPEALS :- 1. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING EX-PARTE ORDER BY HOLDING THAT ON VARIOUS DATES OF HEARING THE CASE WA S NOT ATTENDED BY THE COUNSEL. THIS CONTENTION OF LD . CIT(A), WITH DUE RESPECT IS WRONG. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE APPEAL SEVERAL TIMES. THE ORD ER SO PASSED BEING ILLEGAL AND WRONG, THE SAME, THEREFORE, REQUIRE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT PASSING THE ORDER ON MERITS. THAT EVEN THE EX-PARTE ORDER HAS TO BE DECI DED ON MERITS, DISCUSSING AND DECIDING EACH GROUND OF APPEAL SEPARATELY. HOWEVER, NO SUCH EFFORTS WERE MA DE BY THE LD. CIT(A) THOUGH MENTIONED IN PARA 3.2 OF HIS ORDER. THE ORDER SO PASSED BEING DEVOID OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS ILLEGAL AND WRONG. THE SAME, THEREFORE RE QUIRE TO BE QUASHED. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS AFFORDED TO THE AS SESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE A PPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE. THE DOCUMENTS RELIED BY THE AO W ERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL PRAYE D THAT THE APPEALS MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) A ND AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING MAY KINDLY BE GIVEN. STI INDIA LIMITED VS. ACIT, INDORE I.T.A.NOS. 223 TO 225/IND/2016 PAGE 3 OF 4 4. THE LD. CIT D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY DIS MISSED THE APPEALS FOR NON-APPEARANCE BY THE ASSESSEE ON VARIO US DATES BY APPLYING MULTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED, 38 ITD 320 (DE L). THE PRINCIPLE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM IS THE BASIC CONCEPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE EXPRESSION AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM IMPLIES THAT A PERSON MUST BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND H IMSELF. THIS PRINCIPLE IS SINE QUA NON OF EVERY CIVILIZED SOCIETY. THE RIGHT TO NOTICE, RIGHT TO PRESENT CASE AND EVIDENCE , RIGHT TO REBUT ADVERSE EVIDENCE, RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINATION, RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION, DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE TO PAR TY, REPORT OF ENQUIRY TO BE SHOWN TO THE OTHER PARTY AND REASONED DECISIONS OR SPEAKING ORDERS. WE FIND THAT THE RIGHT OF HEARI NG IS DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA, WHEREIN HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HA S HELD THAT RULE OF FAIR HEARING IS NECESSARY BEFORE PASSI NG ANY ORDER. WE FIND THAT IT IS PRE-DECISION HEARING STANDARD OF NORM OF RULE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. WE FIND THAT IN THIS INSTANT CASE, THE STI INDIA LIMITED VS. ACIT, INDORE I.T.A.NOS. 223 TO 225/IND/2016 PAGE 4 OF 4 ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN PROPER HEARING. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE GIVEN ONE MORE OP PORTUNITY OF HEARING AND TO REPRESENT HIS CASE. THEREFORE, WE RESTORE THESE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR ALLOWIN G PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEVERTHELESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL COOPE RATE IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND FILE NECESSARY EVIDENCES ON WHICH HE WANTS TO RELY UPON. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE 23RD AUGUST, 2016. SD/- (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (O.P.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED :23RD AUGUST, 2016. CPU*