Shivdan Singh Shikshan Sansthan, New Delhi V. Addl. CIT, Uttar Pradesh

ITA 2590/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58585 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIRANJAN KOULI
• Section: 147; 144; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 2590/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 SHIVDAN SINGH SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN, C/O RAJ K. SRI & CO., CA 203, ARIHANT TOWER, D-BLOCK MARKET, VIVEK VIHAR NEW DELHI 110 095 AADTS5727R VS. ADDL. CIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI PRATAP GUPTA, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI NIRANJAN KOULI, CIT, DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JM: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 23.3.2011 PASSED FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2001- 02. GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH RULE 8 OF ITAT RULES. THEY ARE DESCRIPTIVE AND ARGUMENTATIVE IN NA TURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 10 GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ITS MAIN GRIEVA NCE IS THAT LD. AO HAS ITA NO. 2590/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 2 ERRED IN REJECTING THE BENEFIT OF SECTIONS 11 TO 13 AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS PASSED AN EX PARTE ASSTT. ORDER U/S 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HE PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 142 (1) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT. IN THIS NOTICE, AO DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPLY THE INFO RMATION BY 27.12.2008. HE POINTED OUT THAT AO HAS PASSED THE A SSTT. ORDER ON 24.12.2008. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THA T IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE COPY OF THE N OTICE OTHERWISE AO IN THE ASSTT. ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT NEXT DATE HAS BE EN FIXED AS 27.11.2008. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THIS DATE OUGH T NOT TOBE 27.12.2008 RATHER IT IS 27.11.2008. 2. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE NOTIC E, IT IS CLEAR THAT DATE OF HEARING WAS INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSEE AS 27.12.2008 . IT MAY BE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR BUT THAT ERROR HAD LED THE AO T O PASS THE EX PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE AO, T HE DATE OF HEARING WAS FIXED ON 27.11.2008 WHICH REMAINED UNCOMPLIED A T THE END OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HE PROCEEDED TO PASS EX PARTE ORDER. THIS ORDER WAS PASSED ON 24.12.2008. WHEREAS ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THIS DATE WAS 27.12.2008 AND IT WAS SUPPOSED TO COMPLY O N THAT DATE. ITA NO. 2590/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 3 CONSIDERING THIS AND THE EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, WE DEEM IT FIT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE ALL THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF AO FOR PASSING A DENOVO ASSTT. ORDER. LD. AO SHALL PROVIDE DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY , THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2.2.2012. SD/- SD/- [SHAMIM YAHYA] [RAJPAL YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2.2.2012 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT