Shandong Tiejun Electric Power Engg. Company Ltd., Kutch V. The DCIT(Intl. Taxn)-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 2477/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3663 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 144C; 13

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAPAL YADAV , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2477/AHD/2018 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2014 - 2015 SHANDONG TIEJUN ELECTRIC , POWER ENGINEERING CO. LTD. , SURVEY NO.180P , TUNDA AND SIRACHA , MUNDRA, KUTCH - 370435 PAN : AALCS4118F VS. D.C.I.T. , (INT. TAX.) - 1 , AHMEDABAD . (APPLICANT) ( RESPON D ENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR , SR. ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI VINOD TANWANI , SR .D. R / DATE OF HEARING : 26 / 10 / 2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10 / 11 /2020 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 13 , AHMEDABAD , DATED 24/10/2018 ( IN SHORT LD.CIT (A) ) ARISING IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HERE - IN - AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DT.20 / 02/2018 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 20 15 . ITA NO.2477/AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2014 - 15 2 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS PERCEIVED FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) THAT THE SEVERAL NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR FIXING THE DATE OF THE HEARING AND LAST DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 20.08.2018 BUT IN NONE OF THE OCCASION NO BODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED EX PARTE ORDER DUE TO NON - APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO. AGAINST THE IMPUGNED EX PARTE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE US AND INTER - ALI A PLEADED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT THE NOTICE OF THE HEARING COULD HAVE SENT AND SERVED ON THE EMAIL - ID/ PHONE NO./ ADDRESS OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WHICH WERE AVAILABLE IN THE RECORDS. BUT THE L D. CIT - A HAS NOT DONE SO. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. A R CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON PERUSAL OF APPELLATE ORDER, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER EX PARTE WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY REASON FOR CONFIRMING THE S AME ON MERITS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT REQUIRE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN WRITING WITH REASONING. BUT WE FIND FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO WITHOUT DECIDING THE SAME ON ME RIT. 4. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE APPEARED/ CO - OPERATED BEFORE THE AO/TPO AND FILED THE NECESSARY SUBMISSION DURING THE PRO CEEDINGS BEFORE THEM. THUS THE L D. CIT - A SHOULD HAVE CALLED FOR THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS FOR CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO/TPO BEFORE UPHOLDIN G THE ORDER OF THE AO. BUT THE L D. CIT - A FAILED TO DO SO. 5. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF AUDI ALTERAM PA RTEM IS THE BASIC CONCEPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE EXPRESSION AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM IMPLIES THAT A PERSON MUST BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF. THIS PRINCIPLE IS SINE QUA NON OF EVERY CIVILIZED SOCIETY. ITA NO.2477/AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2014 - 15 3 6. INDEED, THE ASSESSEE AFTER FILING THE APPEAL SHOULD BE VIGILANT ENOUGH FOR PURSING IT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BUT FOR THIS, IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, THEN THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PENALISED BY CONFIRMING SUCH HUGE ADDITION WITHOUT HEARING HI S POINTS OF CONTENTIONS. THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSE AND PUNISHMENT GIVEN TO IT (THE ASSESSEE) BY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION IS NOT COMMENSURATE TO EACH OTHER. 7 . IN VIEW OF THE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING AND TO REPRESENT HIS CASE. THEREFORE, IN EXERCISE OF POWER CONFERRED UNDER RULE 28 OF TRIBUNAL RULES, WE RESTORE THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) FOR RECONSIDERATION ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AFTER ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 8. NEVERTHELESS, THE ASSESSEE IS AWARE OF THE CASE SET UP AGAINST IT, ACCORDINGLY IT IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE ITS SUBMISSION AND COOPERATE IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND ITS FAILURE WILL ENTAIL CONFIRMATION OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO/TPO. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE S APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9 . IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10 /11 / 2020 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/ - SD/ - (RAJPAL YADAV ) (WASEEM AHMED) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY A HMEDABAD; DATED 10 / 11 /2020 MANISH ITA NO.2477/AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2014 - 15 4 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION : 02/11 / 2020 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. - 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH TH E FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. : 10 /11 /2020 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER .. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , / DR, ITAT, 6. / GUARD FILE .