Vipin Kumar Singh, New Delhi V. ITO, Bulandshahr

ITA 2295/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77563 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 07-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAURABH GOEL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. S. SYAL, AM AND SH. A. T. VARKEY, JM ITA NO. 2295/DEL/2013 : ASS TT. YEAR : 2006-07 VIPIN KUMAR SINGH PROP. M/S VIPIN DAIRY, VILLAGE JAWARKHEDA, P.O.-BULANDSHAHR VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, BULANDSHAHR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ALQPS0839Q ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJ KUMAR & SAURABH GOEL REVENUE BY : MS ME ENAKSHI VOHRA DATE OF HEARING : 7.4.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 9.4.2014 ORDER PER R. S. SYAL , AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 13.12.2011 IN RELATION TO THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. FIRST THREE GROUNDS ARE AGAINST THE PASSING OF EX-PARTE ORDER BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT PRO VIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND IN ANY CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR APPEARING BEFORE BOTH THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,05,720/-. AFTER GIV ING CERTAIN OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING, ON WHICH THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ITA NO. 2295/DEL/2013 VIPIN KUMAR SINGH 2 AO PASSED THE EX-PARTE ORDER U/S 144 ON TOTAL INCO ME OF RS. 23,31,260/-. THE SAME POSITION CONTINUED EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO GAVE SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE BUT HAD TO BE CONTEND ED WITH DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN VIEW OF NON-PARTICIPATION FROM THE ASSESS EES END. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE ADVOCATE WHO WAS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) OMITTED TO DO SO AND DID NOT PASS ON NECESSARY INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE REASONS FOR THE ABSENCE OF THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD M EET ADEQUATELY IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTO RED TO THE FILE OF A.O. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL, WHO APPEARED FROM THE SIDE OF TH E ASSESSEE, HAS UNDERTAKEN TO EXTEND FULL COOPERATION TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN SUCH FRESH PROCEEDINGS, FACILITATING THE COMPLETION OF ASSESS MENT AS PER LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9/4/2014. SD/- SD/- (A. T. VARKEY) (R. S . SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: 9/4/2014 *SUBODH* ITA NO. 2295/DEL/2013 VIPIN KUMAR SINGH 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 7.4.2014 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 7.4.2014 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *