M/s Shujat Hospital, Amroha V. ITO, Moradabad

ITA 2756/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3230 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHNA PAUL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2756/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S SHUJAT HOSPITAL, VS. ITO, WARD 2(2), MOHALLA NAL, MORADABAD, U.P. AMROHA-244221 U.P. (PAN: AAYFS4045H) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. V. RAJA KUMAR, ADV. REVENUE BY : SMT. ASHNA PAUL, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.2.2016 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), MORADABAD RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN IMPOSING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT PROVIDING DUE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THE ACTION BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS, MISCONCEIVED AND 2 UNJUST MUST BE QUASHED WITH DIRECTIONS FOR RELIEF. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEAT ED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE HAS STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED SUFFICIEN T OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDE R, THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE S AME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE A SSESSEE. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM, BUT HE COULD NOT AVAIL THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE UPHELD AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CI T(A). AFTER EXAMINING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, I AM OF THE CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER AND DID N OT PROVIDE 3 SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY, AS A RESULT THEREOF, THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THEREF ORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISP UTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SA ME AFRESH, UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23/11/2017. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 23/11/2017 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES