NILESH C. CHHEDA, MUMBAI V. ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3125/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 312519914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 28-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH K ARVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJUKTA CHOW DHURY
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE S/SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT AND B. R.BASKARAN (AM) . . , . . , ./I.T.A. NO.3125/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07) SHRI NILESH C CHHEDA BLOCK NO.16A, 2 ND FLOOR, MAHENDRA MANSION, 389-91, JSS ROAD, CHIRA BAZAR, MUMBAI-400002 / VS. INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 14(1)(3), EARNEST HOUSE, 2 ND FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 ( / APPELLANT) .. ( !' / RESPONDENT) ./ $% ./ PAN/GIRNO.: AAAPC9344N & / APPELLANT BY : MS.SANJUKTA CHOWDHURY !' ' & /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH K ARVIND ( ) ' * + / DATE OF HEARING : 28.8.2014 ,- ' * + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.9.2014 / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 09- 10-2009 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) XIV, MUMBAI AND IT RE LATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION B Y 109 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED A PETITION REQUESTING THE BENCH TO CONDON E THE DELAY. HAVING REGARD TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE PETITION, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 2. THE ASSESSEE, INTER ALIA, HAS URGED BEFORE US T HAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN NOT P ROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS PRELIMINARY ISSUE. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A). ON A PERUSAL OF THE SAID I.T.A. NO.3125/MUM/2010 2 PARAGRAPH, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SEEKING ADJOURNMENT BEFORE LD CIT(A) ON EVERY OCCASION ON THE REASONING THAT THE PARTICULARS ARE BEING GATHERED. HENCE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD CIT(A) HAS PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE ISSUES URGED BEFORE HIM ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS MADE VARIOUS TYPES OF ADDITIONS, VIZ., ADDITION U/S 68, ADDITION U/S 69, ADDITION OF SUNDRY CREDITORS BALANCES, DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES ETC. THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK SOME TIME TO COLLECT MATERIA LS AND INFORMATION TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS SUBMISSIONS TO BE MADE AGAINST THO SE ADDITIONS. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSTRAINED TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT ON VAR IOUS OCCASIONS, WHICH WAS TAKEN ADVERSELY BY THE LD CIT(A). THE LD A.R SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED VARIOUS MATERIALS AND THEY HAVE BEEN FURN ISHED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BE ADMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ALTERNATIVELY, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE L D CIT(A) TO PRESENT HIS CASE WITH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 5. WE ALSO HEARD LD D.R ON THIS ISSUE. WE HAVE ALR EADY NOTICED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS EXPRESSLY STATED THAT HE HAS DECIDED THE ISSUES ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, MEANING THEREBY, ALL THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED EX-PARTE. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE LD CIT(A) AND HE HAS ALSO FURNISHED ADDITION AL EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT HIS STAND IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS ISSUES. THOUGH THERE IS FAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO IN SEEKING ADJOURNMENT EVERY TIME, YE T, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY B E PROVIDED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS STAND. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND RESTORE ALL THE MATTERS TO HIS FILE WITH THE DI RECTION TO EXAMINE ALL THE ISSUES AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEN DECIDE THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. WE ALSO DIRECT TH E ASSESSEE TO EXTEND FULL CO- OPERATION TO THE LD CIT(A) WITHOUT FAIL. I.T.A. NO.3125/MUM/2010 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10TH SEPT, 2014 . ,- ( . /0 1 2 10 TH SEPT , 2014 - ' 3) 4 SD SD ( . . / H.L. KARWA ) ( . . , / B.R. BASKARAN) / PRESIDENT / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / ( ) MUMBAI : 10TH SEPT, 2014 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS ! ' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( 9* ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. ( 9* / CIT CONCERNED 5. 6. :; 3 !*< , + < , / ( ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 3 = ) / GUARD FILE. > ( / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY ? $ (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) + < , / ( ) /ITAT, MUMBAI