Mohit Vohra, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2383/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97694 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 26-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-2: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2383/DEL/2014 A.Y. : 2008-09 MOHIT VOHRA, VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-12, C/O RAJNISH & ASSOCIATES, E-2, ARA CENTRE, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, JHANDEWALAN, 92 & 87, DEFENCE COLONY FLYOVER NEW DELHI MARKET, NEW DELHI 110 049 (PAN : AERPV3311C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. RAJNISH AGGARWAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SUJIT KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 26-10--2015 DATE OF ORDER : 26-10-2015 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI, NEW DELHI D ATED 19.2.2014 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . CIT (A) ERRED IN SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE GROUNDS ON MERITS WHICH IS UNJUSTIFI ED, ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 2 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE L D. CIT (A) ERRED IN STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ATTENDED THE H EARINGS ON VARIOUS DATES WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTENDED AND TA KEN ADJOURNMENTS ON TWO OCCASIONS ON RECEIPT OF HEARING NOTICES AND THE OTHER NOTICES WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE (AFFIDAVIT ENCLOSED), WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED, ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, IN THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE APPELLANT THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 40 ,000/- MADE BY THE AO HOLDING IT TO BE CASH DEPOSIT IN HDF C BANK (DATE NOT MENTIONED) WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH CASH DEP OSIT IN THE SAID BANK, WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED, ILLEGAL AND AGAINS T THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, IN THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEA L FILED BY THE APPELLANT THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 69 ,000/- MADE BY THE AO HOLDING IT TO BE CASH DEPOSIT IN HDF C BANK (DATE NOT MENTIONED) WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH CASH DEP OSIT IN THE SAID BANK, WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED, ILLEGAL AND AGAINS T THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHILE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET JUSTICE FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE WAS DENIED THE 3 PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO , WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED, ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 6. THE ASSESSEE PRAYS THAT THE MATTER BE REMANDED BA CK TO THE LD. CIT (A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ ALTER ANY GROU NDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 8. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN ARE WITHOUT PREJUDIC E TO EACH OTHER 3. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE OR DERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WI TH THE APPEAL FIELD. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE HIM. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 2. NONE PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E AT THE HEARING FIXED ON THE FOLLOWING DATES, DESPITE ISSUE OF NOTICE BY REGISTERED POST / SPEED POST, AS DULY SERVED. DATE OF ISSUED NOTICE 31.1.2013 FIXED ON 20.2.2013 NO NE ATTENDED. DATE OF ISSUED NOTICE 23.8.2013 FIXED ON 27.9.2013 NONE ATTENDED. 4 DATE OF ISSUED NOTICE 22.1.2013 FIXED ON 11.12.2013 ADJOURNED TO 29.1.2014 ON REQUEST LETTER. ALSO ON 29.1.2014 ADJOURNE D TO 18.2.2014 ON REQUEST LETTER NONE APPEARED ON 18.2.20 14. 3. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN SHAHBAD COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LD. VS. DCIT (2013) 38 TAXMANN.COM 204 (PUNJAB & HARYANA) THAT WH ERE REVENUE DISPATCHED NOTICE AND THE FACT THAT NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED BACK, THE SAME RAISE A PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE OF NO TICE U/S. 27 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 I.E. PRESUMPTION AS T O VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE HOLDS GOOD IF SAME IS NOT RETURNED BACK TO DEPARTMENT. 4. THEREFORE, IT GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PRESSING ITS APPEAL. THE APPELLANT HAS TIME AND AGAIN TAKEN THE PLEA IN ITS REQUEST LETTERS THAT SINCE REQUIRED IN FORMATION ARE STILL PENDING FOR THE APPEAL AND ARE UNDER PREPARATION/ C OLLECTION, THE MATTER MAY BE ADJOURNED AND THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF. I THEREFORE, HAVE NO OPTION BUT T O DISMISS THE APPEAL IN DEFAULT, PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, PLA CING RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING CASES. CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) (P) LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 ( DEL.) ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR (1997) 223 ITR 490 (M P). 5. ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 5. AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A), I FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER. HE SUMMARILY DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE BEING UNREPRESENTED. IN MY CO NSIDERED OPINION, LD. CIT(A) 5 HAS ERRED IN THIS REGARD. LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE AD JUDICATED THE ISSUE ON MERITS. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT EVEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS H AVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HENCE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT I N THIS CASE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE NEEDS TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT( A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AS PER LAW. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO CON SIDER THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH AND PASS A PROPER AND SPEAKING ORDER CONSIDERING TH E MERITS OF THE CASE. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/10/2015 . SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 26/10/2015 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. D R, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES 6