KISHORE KUMAR, HYDERABAD V. ITO, WARD- 1(3)(4), HALDWANI

ITA 3274/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4754 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADEEP KUMAR MEEL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3274/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 KISHORE KUMAR, VS. ITO, WARD 1(3)(4) PLOT NO. 90, AMBIANCE FORT HALDWANI COLONY, ATTAPUR, HYDERABAD 500048 (PANACFPK7109P) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. GAUTAM JAIN, ADV. & SH. PIYUSH KUMAR KAMAL, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR MEEL, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.1.2018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HALDWANI RELATING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 15. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN EXPARTE ORDER DATED 30.1.2 018 WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES FATHER IN LAW WAS SUFFERING FROM MEDICAL ILLNESS FROM THE LAST ONE YEAR AND PASSED AWAY ON 24.1.2018 AND DUE TO TH IS FACT THE ASSESSEE 2 WAS UNABLE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE NOTICES AND DIS MISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO. 4. LD. DR HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE REMAINED NON-COO PERATIVE BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY LENIENT VIEW FROM THIS BENCH. HENCE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT ASSESSEE REMAINED NON-COOPERATIVE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED THE SAME IN HIS ORDER DATED 30.1.2018, B UT LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN A ROUTINE MANNER, WITHOUT DISCUSSING IN DETAIL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE A ND ALSO DID NOT DEAL THE ISSUE ON MERIT AND PASSED A NON-SPEAKING ORDER, WHI CH IN MY OPINION, IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JU STICE AND IT IS AN ERRONEOUS APPROACH. I AM ALSO OF THE OPINION THA T LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES FATHER IN LAW WAS SUFFERING FROM MEDICAL ILLNESS AND PASSED AWAY ON 24.1.2018. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT EVEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER HAS TO BE SPEAKING ONE . 6. IN THIS REGARD I DRAW SUPPORT FROM HONBLE APE X COURT IN THE CASE M/S SAHARA INDIA (FARMS) VS. CIT & ANR. IN [2008] 300 ITR 403 HAS HELD THAT EVEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER HAS TO BE CONSIS TENT WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3 7. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, I REMIT BACK THE ISSUES T O THE FILES OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO CONSIDER EA CH AND EVERY ASPECTS OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL AND DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AND CONSIDE RED ALL THE EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASS ESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29/10/2018. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 29/10/2018 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES 4