Mr. Hemant Sud, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3084/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 308420114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN RAWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU : JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3084/DEL/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 HEMANT SUD VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, W-26, GREATER KAILASH, PART-II, WARD-10(3), NEW D ELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN: AARPS 6759 B ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJEEV SABHARWAL CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ROBIN RAWAL SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 20-01-2015 DATE OF ORDER : 23-01-2015. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M:- THIS APPEAL , PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE , IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7-04-2012, PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS)-VIII, N EW DELHI IN APPEAL NO. 415 / 09-10, RELATING TO A.Y.2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 6 GROUNDS TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(A) VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION , BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: '5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA S E AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICE SERVED U PON IT DURING THE 2 COURSE OF APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS AS EXPLAINED IN PRA -3 ABOVE. IT IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT WAS REPRESENTED ONCE BY SOMEONE FROM M/S RAJIV SABHARWAL & ASSOCIATES. HOWEVER ON THIS APPOINTED D ATE THE APPELLANT SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT . THE FACT THAT THE CASE WAS REPRESENTED ONCE BY M/S RAJIV SABHARWAL & ASSOCIATES INDICATES THAT THE NOTICES WERE DUL Y SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT . THE ONUS OF ATTENDING THE PROCEEDINGS AND FURNISHING OF EVIDENCES CONTRAR Y TO THE FINDINGS OF THE AO WAS ON THE APPELLANT WHICH IT HAS NOT DISCHA RGED. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN DISREGARD TO THE PROCEEDINGS DU RING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE , I AM INCLINED TO CON C LUDE THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INCLINED TO PRESS FOR GROUNDS OF A PPEAL RAISED BEFORE ME AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS D ISMISSED.' 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT NO NOTICE FIXING THE APPEAL FOR 17-04-2012 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS E V ER RECEI V ED B Y THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION THE ASSESSE E SHRI HEMANT SUD HAS FILED HIS AFFIDAVIT . LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE WAS PREVE NTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PURSUING HIS APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) , THE ORDER OF CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND REMITED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERIT BY PASSING A REASONED ORDER , AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. 4. LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) . 5. WE HA V E HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN THE EYE OF LAW. IF THE LD. LE ARNED CIT( A) WANTED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE, BEING FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HE WAS DUTY BOUND TO DISPOSE OF THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM ON MERITS . IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS SET ASID E AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO HIM WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A REASONED ORDER, ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE 3 HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER AFFORDING REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 23 -01-2015. SD/- SD/- ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 23-01-2015. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR