M/s. Multiplex Capital Ltd., Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2281/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6859 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARUNA MITTAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Assessment record
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-228 1/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-20 11-12) MULTIPLEX CAPITAL LTD., 100/28, KESHAV TOWER,RAJAPUR MARKET, SECTOR-9, ROHINI,DELHI-110085. PAN-AAACM1761B (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-5(4), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY MS. ARUNA MITTAL, CA RESPONDENT BY SH.N.K.BANSAL, SR.DR ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2015 OF CIT(A)-6, DELHI PERTAININ G TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE PARTIES WERE HEARD ONLY IN RESPECT TO GROUND NO.2 & 3 RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVE TO BE SET ASIDE. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE PASSED THE ORDE R ON MERIT OF THE CASE INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUMMARILY WIT HOUT REFERRING THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, GROUND OF APPEAL AND STATEMENTS OF FACTS. 2. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE CIT(A) AFTER NOTING THAT VARIOUS NOTICES HAD BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO WHICH NEIT HER ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS PLACED NOR ANY ONE WAS PRESENT, DISMISSED THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEA L. DATE OF HEARING 23 .0 8 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 . 1 0.2016 I.T.A .NO.-2281/DEL/2015 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. THE LD.AR HAS ARGUED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DES ERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. THE LD.SR.DR HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE SAID REQUEST. 3.1. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE RECORD. I FIND THAT THE MODE OF DECISION MAKING ADOPTION BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AS SET OUT IN SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTI ON 250 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY-REFERENCE:- PROCEDURE IN APPEAL 250. (1) . (2) (3) (4) . (5) . (6) THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DISPOS ING OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL STATE THE POINTS FOR DETER MINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASON FOR THE DECISION. (6A)............................................... .................... 3.2. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ISSUE OF ADDITION BY WAY O F A DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A MADE BY THE AO WHICH WAS UNDER CHALLENGE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T EVEN ADDRESSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE ORDER. IN VIEW OF THIS BLATANT A ND GLARING STATUTORY DEFICIENCY THE ISSUE IS SET ASIDE AND RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN TERMS OF THE STATUTORY MANDATE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH OCTOBER 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDIC IAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* I.T.A .NO.-2281/DEL/2015 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT NEW DELHI