Gopal Chand Taneja (HUF), New Delhi V. ITO WARD 46(2), New Delhi

ITA 3203/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9558 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Non passing of speaking order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3203/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 GOPAL CHAND TANEJA (HUF), VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 895, NAI SARAK, NEW DELHI WARD-46(2), NEW DELHI (PAN:AADHG7763D) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 27.03.2017 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-16, NEW DELHI, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 29, 88,664/-, AS AGA INST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 18,64,480/-. 2. THAT THE LEANED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING THE ORDER IN U TTER DISREGARD OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT EX PARTE, VI OLATING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2.1 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS OVERLOOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT, AS THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM IS NON SPEAKING AND WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 2.2 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME FAX (A PPEALS) HAS IGNORED VARIOUS JUDICIAL RULINGS, WHEREIN IT WAS HE LD THAT SECTION 250(6) MAKES IT OBLIGATOR) FOR THE CIT(A) TO PASS A SPEAKI NG ORDER DECIDING 2 THE POINTS RAISED IN APPEAL, STATING HIS REASONS FO R THE DECISION, AS SUCH. 2.3 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT EX PART E ON A TECHNICAL GROUND THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED IN EL ECTRONIC FORM INSTEAD OF PAPER FORM AND THAT TOO WITHOUT PROVIDIN G ANY VALID OPPORTUNITY TO RECTIFY THE SAID TECHNICAL DEFECT. 3. THAT FURTHER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT ADDITIO N SO MADE BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF A SUM OF RS. 10, 80, 000/- IS BASED ON PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS AND BY ARBITRARILY BRUSHING AS IDE THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS/EVIDENCES/MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, WH ICH WERE FURNISHED IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE FACT THAT NO ADDI TION WAS CALLED FOR IN THE INSTANT CASE. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN SUSTAINING A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 44,184/- ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE TAX PAID ON J ACCOUNT OF RENT RECEIVED FROM M/S CORPORATION BANK. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL ON 01.03.2019 . REGISTRY ISSUED RPAD TO THE ASSESSEE FOR 24.09.2019. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED NOR FILE D ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE BENCH ADJOURNED THE MATTER FOR 01. 01.2020 AND ISSUED RPAD NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36. AGAIN ON 01.01.2020, ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEAR NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE A SSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36, THEREFORE, I AM DECIDING THE APPEAL EX PARTE AS SESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. 3 3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 27.03.2017, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT L D. CIT(A) HAS PASSED EX PARTE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFI CIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO PASSED THE NON SPEAKING ORDER , WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THEREFORE, I AM CAN CELLING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO TH E LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AS PER LAW, AF TER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE WIL L REMOVE THE DEFECTS AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THEREAFTER LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WI LL DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AS PER LAW, AFTER PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 07/01/2020. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 07/01/2020 SH COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES