Alok Bhatnagar, Meerut V. DCIT, Meerut

ITA 262/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3368 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 24-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BEDOBANI CHAUDHURI
• Assessee Lawyers: K SAMPAT
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.262/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ALOK BHATNAGAR, CIT(A)-111, SAMRAT PALACE, GARH ROAD, MEERUT. PAN: ACXPB 9678A VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : MS. BEDOBANI CHAUDHURI, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY : S/SHRI K. SAMPAT AND V. RAJA KUMAR, ADV. / DATE OF HEARING : 24/04/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/04/2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-IV, KANPUR, VIDE ORDER DATED 28.11.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS OF APPEAL AS UNDER: THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS.10,95,000/- AS APPELLANTS INCOME AND ADDED TO HIS TOTAL INCOME. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.10,95,000/- AND RS.6,92,270/- WITH R EGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. 3. LEARNED CIT(A) PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER BY RELYI NG UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480, DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F NEW DIWAN OILS ITA NO.262/DEL/2017 2 MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 AND DECISION OF IT AT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., (1991 ) 38 ITD 320. THOUGH, HE HAS DISMISSED THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MER IT AS WELL. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED T HE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER EX- PARTE AND IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACE D THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE SAME. FIRST LY, HE HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE AND SECONDLY ON MERIT WITHOUT EXAMINING THE DETAIL. THIS APPROACH OF THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FIL E OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHO WILL DECIDE THE APPEAL DENOVO AFTER GIVING PROPER AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY 27 TH APRIL, 2017 SD/- (B.P. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27/04/2017