S. Gurcharan Chawla, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3323/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 332320114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MONGA
• Assessee Lawyers: RANJIT
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D.RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 3323/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2004-2005 S.GURUCHARANSINGH CHAWLA VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 6(1) F-13/7, MODEL TOWN NEW DELHI DELHI 9 PAN: AAHPC 7979F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RANJIT, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SH.AK MONGA, D.R. O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2008 OF CIT(A)-IX, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2004-05 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,00, 000/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. ASSESSEE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO MAKE, ADD, DELETE, MODIFY OR LATER ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT AGAIN ST THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 1,00,000/- U/S 68 BY THE A.O. THE ASSES SEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BEFORE WHOM AS PER PARA 4.0 TO 4. 2 WHICH HAVE BEEN SUMMARIZED IN PARA 4.3 VARIOUS ADJOURNMENTS WERE SO UGHT. FINALLY ON 17 TH FEB.2011 WHEN THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 21 ST FEB.2011 NO ONE WAS PRESENT. IN THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE CIT (A) VIDE PARA 5.0 TO 7.0 AT PAGES 5 AND 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONCLUD ED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. RELIANC E WAS PLACED IN THE 2 IMPUGNED ORDER UPON ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) AND CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA P.LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AMONGST OTHERS. 3. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS, WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS A ND POSITION OF LAW, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER IT IS SEEN IS NOT IN TERMS OF TH E REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT AS PER S.250(6) OF THE ACT WHICH MANDATES THA T THE CIT(A) SHALL DISPOSE THE APPEAL IN WRITING; STATING THE POINTS F OR DETERMINATION; THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION. THE IMPUGNED ORDER DOES NOT MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT AS NO I NDEPENDENT REASONING HAS BEEN GIVEN TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE A.O. AN D THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED FOR NON-REPRESENTATION. ACCORDINGLY FOR THE REASONS HEREINABOVE THE APPEAL IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFFORDED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS PER THE PRONOUNCEMENT MADE IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (K.D.RANJAN ) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2011 *MANGA 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CI T(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR