M/s. Dream Buidcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3195/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7606 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL CHANDER SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: AKHILESH AGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-3195/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) DREAM BUILDCON PVT. LTD. 12, RING ROAD, LAJPAT NAGAR-IV, NEW DELHI AABCD9084 (APPELLANT) VS DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-12, ARA CENTRE, E-2, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. AKHILESH AGARWAL RESPONDENT BY SH. SUNIL CHANDER SHARMA, CIT DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 5/2/2013 PASSED BY CIT (A)- XXXI , NEW DELHI, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, ON VARIOUS GROUNDS INCLUDI NG GROUND NO.1 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW, AS THE C IT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND CHO SE TO PASS AN EX-PARTE APPELLATE ORDER. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SEEKING TIME, HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. CIT DR MR. SUNIL CHANDER SHAR MA, IT WAS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO REJECT THE PETITION MOVED. THE RECO RD SHOWS THAT THE EX-PARTE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AFTER GIVING VARIOUS OPPOR TUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION THE ASSESSE E WAS DISMISSED HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSING THE APPEAL RELY ING ON ULTIMATELY THE CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD. 38 (DEL) 320 AND LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP-INDORE BENCH). NOT ONLY THE FACT THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A SPEAKING ORDER WE ALSO DO NOT FIND ANY DISCUSSION I N THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH DATE OF HEARING 05.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09.06.2016 ITA NO. 3195/DEL/201 3 PAGE 2 OF 2 SHOWS HOW AND WHEN THE LAST NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DISCUSSION THERE ON IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE WHETHER IT WAS SERVED OR NOT. ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT IT CANNOT BE PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS TO PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE OPPOR TUNITY SO PROVIDED IT IS HOPED IS UTILIZED GAINFULLY BY THE ASSESSEE BY MAKING PRO PER AND EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE AND IS NOT FRITTERED AWAY. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME THE CIT (A) WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION MOVE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED AND THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT (A). 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 O F JUNE 2016. SD/- SD/- (L. P. SAHU) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER *R. NAHEED /AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI