Jupiter Engineering Co., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Circle-6, Ahmedabad

ITA 2720/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 272020514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND SHRI A. L. GEHL OT, AM) ITA NO.2720/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2006-07 M/S. JUPITER ENGINEERING CO., PLOT NO.510, PHASE- IV, GIDC, VATVA, AHMEDABAD 382 445 VS THE J. C. I. T., RANGE-6, AHMEDABAD PA NO AABFJ 6572 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI S. N. DIVETIA, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. K. MEENA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 12-10-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12-10-2011 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XV I, AHMEDABAD DATED 06-07-2010, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, CHAL LENGING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/-. 2. THE AO AFTER REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS U/S 145 OF THE IT ACT MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/-. THIS ADDITION WA S CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) GAVE SEVERAL ITA NO.2720/AHD/2010 M/S. JUPITER ENGINEERING CO. VS THE JCIT, RANGE-6, AHMEDABAD 2 OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BUT NO NE OF THE NOTICES WAS COMPLIED WITH AS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER . THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE NON-COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE SAME APPEAL. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS VIOLATED BY NOT GIVING PROPER HEARING BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THAT THE ASSESSEE MOVED SEVERAL ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT TH E ISSUE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS VERY SMALL AND SEVERAL OPPOR TUNITIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE APPELLATE STAGE B UT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL OF ANYTHING. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT TH E LEVEL OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). ACCORDING TO SECTION 250(6) OF THE IT ACT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE REASONS FOR DECISION IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE IMPUGNED ORDER HOWEVER, SHOWS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT STATED THE POINT FO R DETERMINATION AND REASONS FOR DECISION WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. SEVERAL NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL BUT NONE HAS BEEN COMPLIE D WITH. ADJOURNMENTS WERE SOUGHT FOR ON ONE PRETEXT OR THE OTHER. THE ITA NO.2720/AHD/2010 M/S. JUPITER ENGINEERING CO. VS THE JCIT, RANGE-6, AHMEDABAD 3 ASSESSEE MOVED ADJOURNMENTS REPEATEDLY STATING THAT THE DETAILS ARE NOT READY. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR NOT PURSUING THE APPEAL BEFORE H IM. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF ORS.1,50,000/- BY APPLYING PROVISIONS O F SECTION 145 OF THE IT ACT. THIS WAS, THEREFORE, VERY SMALL ISSUE BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE SOU GHT FOR ADJOURNMENT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON UNNECESSAR Y REASONS. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO DENI AL OF OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). HOWEVER, AS NOTED ABOVE, SINCE REASONS FOR DECISION ARE NOT MENTIONED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AND THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) O NLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING OF THE APPEAL, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DECIDED ON M ERIT. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TH E LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIS FILE WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT BY GIVIN G REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT SEEK ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON 05-01-2012 FOR DISPOSAL OF TH E APPEAL. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT SINCE ONLY SMALL ISSUE IS INVOLV ED IN THIS CASE, THEREFORE, MATTER SHOULD NOT BE ADJOURNED ON THE DA TE OF HEARING FIXED BY US FOR 05-01-2012 BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). ITA NO.2720/AHD/2010 M/S. JUPITER ENGINEERING CO. VS THE JCIT, RANGE-6, AHMEDABAD 4 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ITSELF. SD/- SD/- (A. L. GEHLOT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER 12/10/2011 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD