Smt. Suraj Bala Dhull, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2982/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6729 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT NAYYAR; BHARAT NAYYAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-3 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2982/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) SURAJ BALA DHULL, 384, PARMANAND COLONY, NEAR MUKHERJEE NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110009. PAN-AAGPD0632F ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-63(2), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SH. AMIT NAYYAR, CA & SH. BHARAT NAYYAR, CA REVENUE BY SH.ANIL SHARMA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 29 .09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07 .11.2016 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2016 OF THE CIT(A)-20, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2010-11 AY ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWEVER, THE PARTIES WERE HEARD ONLY IN R ESPECT OF GROUND NO. 1 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (LD.AO) AND LD.CI T(A) ARE BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB-INITIO. 2. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN HEARD. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER BY HIS ORDER DATED 28.03.2014 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 (3)/147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHEREIN BY WAY OF AN ADDITION OF RS.13,14,114/- THE RETURNED INCOME AT RS.3,91,660/- WAS ASSESSED AT AN INCOME OF RS.17,05,774/-. THE CIT(A) CONSIDERING TH E FACT THAT DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR DECIDED THE APPEAL HO LDING AS UNDER:- 3.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FA CT OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCES OR SUB MISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES. I N VIEW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM UNABLE GRANT ANY RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT . ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. I.T .A .NO.-2982/DEL/2016 PAGE 2 OF 3 4. ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS BY THE PAR TIES, I FIND THAT THE ABOVE FINDING BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, CAN BE SAID TO BE A FIND ING WHICH CAN BE UPHELD. THE PROCEDURE REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE COMMISSIONER(APPEALS ) FOR DECIDING THE APPEALS SET OUT IN SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AFTER FIX ING THE DATE OF HEARING IN TERMS OF SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 250 THE COMMISSIONER (APPEAL S) IS REQUIRED TO NOT ONLY STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION BEFORE HIM BUT IS ALSO REQ UIRED TO JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION BY WAY OF PASSING A REASONED SPEAKING ORDER. THE RELEVANT SEC TION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- PROCEDURE IN APPEAL 250. (1) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL FIX A DA Y AND PLACE FOR THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, AND SHALL GIVE NOTICE OF THE SAME TO TH E APPELLANT AND TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST WHOSE ORDER THE APPEAL IS PREFERRED . (2) THE FOLLOWING SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD AT THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL (A) THE APPELLANT, EITHER IN PERSON OR BY AN AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE; (B) THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EITHER IN PERSON OR BY A REPRESENTATIVE. (3) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ADJOURN THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL FROM TIME TO TIME. (4) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MAY, BEFORE DISPOSIN G OF ANY APPEAL, MAKE SUCH FURTHER INQUIRY AS HE THINKS FIT, OR MAY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRY AND REPORT THE RESULT OF THE SAME TO THE CO MMISSIONER (APPEALS). (5) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MAY, AT THE HEARING OF AN APPEAL, ALLOW THE APPELLANT TO GO INTO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL NOT SPECI FIED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS SATISFIED THAT THE OM ISSION OF THAT GROUND FROM THE FORM OF APPEAL WAS NOT WILFUL OR UNREASONABLE. (6) THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DISPOSI NG OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATIO N, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASON FOR THE DECISION. (6A) IN EVERY APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), W HERE IT IS POSSIBLE, MAY HEAR AND DECIDE SUCH APPEAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH SUCH APPEAL IS FILED BEFORE HIM UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 246A. (7) ON THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL COMMUNICATE THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE AND TO THE 88[PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR 88[PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER. 5. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE STATUTORY MANDATE SET OUT THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS. THE SAID REQUIREMENT CANNOT BE SAID TO THE COMPLIED WITH BY AN ORDER WHERE EVEN THE BAS IC FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED NOR THE POINTS ARISING OUT OF THE GROUNDS FILED WHICH A ROSE FOR DETERMINATION IN THE APPEAL FILED AND WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE REASONS FOR CONCURRING W ITH THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT, THE STATUTORY MANDATE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FULFILLED. I.T .A .NO.-2982/DEL/2016 PAGE 3 OF 3 5.1. ACCORDINGLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVE DETAILED R EASONS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUES ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF TH E CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI