M/s Pinewood Information Systems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 245/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9366 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NOS.-245/DEL/2016 (A.YS.-2010-11) PINEWOOD INFORMATION SYSTEMS (P) LTD., C/O R.S. AHUJA & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, C-353, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI 110 024 (PAN: AADCP7011N) (APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 11, NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) I.T.A .NOS.249 & 252/DEL/2016 (A.YS.-2009-10 & 2010-11) FIREPRO WIRELESS & TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., C/O R.S. AHUJA & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, C-353, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI 110 024 (PAN: AACCC6876D) (APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 11, NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) I.T.A .NOS.-261 & 262/DEL/2016 (A.YS.- 2010-11 & 2009-10) GOLF TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD., C/O R.S. AHUJA & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, C-353, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI 110 024 (PAN: AACCC6876D) (APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 11, NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) 2 I.T.A .NO.-270/DEL/2016 (A.Y.- 2010-11) MRS. MAHINDER SINGH BEDI, C/O R.S. AHUJA & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, C-353, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI 110 024 (PAN: AAHPB1620Q) (PAN: APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 11, NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) I.T.A .NO.-271/DEL/2016 (A.Y.- 2010-11) CHANDNI BEDI, C/O R.S. AHUJA & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, C-353, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI 110 024 (PAN: AAHPB1620Q) (PAN: APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 11, NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE SEPARATE ASSESSEES ARE D IRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD. C IT(A)-XXXI, NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AS MENTIONED ABOVE. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS A RE COMMON AND IDENTICAL, HENCE, THE SAME WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE, BY DEALING WITH ITA NO. 261/DEL/2016 (AY 2010-11) GO LF TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. VS. ACIT. THE SOLE ISSUE ARGU ED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT EXPARTE IMPUGNED OR DER IN ALL THESE APPEALS WAS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND WI THOUT CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 153A OF THE ACT. 3 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE N OT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT EX PARTE ORDERS IN ALL THESE APPEALS WAS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS PRO VIDED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 153A OF THE ACT, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND AGAINST THE PRIN CIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, HE REQUEST ED TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE EXPARTE ORDERS PASSE D BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND FOUND THAT REASONABLE OR ADEQUATE OP PORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS NOT AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO IMPOSED THE PENALTY U/S. 271AAA OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 TO RS. 40,00,000/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DOC UMENTS AND RECORDS PROVIDE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 153A OF THE ACT, WHICH IN OUR OPINION, IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND IT IS AN ERRONEO US APPROACH. WE ALSO NOTE THAT LD. CIT(A) IN OTHER 06 APPEALS H AS PASSED THE SIMILAR EXPARTE ORDER BY FOLLOWING THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF M/S GOLF TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. (2009-10). KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT BACK THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILES OF THE LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PRODUCE A LL THE 4 EVIDENCES / DOCUMENTS, IF ANY, BEFORE HIM TO SUBS TANTIATE ITS CASE AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. IN THE RESULT, THE ITA NO. 261/DEL/2016 (AY 2010-11) IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. SINCE IN ALL THE OTHER 06 APPEALS, SIMILAR FACTS ARE PERMEATING, THEREFORE, OUR FINDING GIVEN ABOVE IN I TA NO. 261/DEL/2016 (AY 2010-11) IN THE CASE OF GOLF TECHN OLOGIES (P) LTD. VS. ACIT WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN OT HER 06 APPEALS ALSO, BECAUSE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 07 APPEALS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19.12.2018. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19/12/2018 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI