M/s Gupta Metal Sheet (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, Faridabad

ITA 336/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6856 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SAROHA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 336 & 337/DEL /2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S GUPTA METAL SHEET [P] LTD VS. THE DCIT ROOM NO. 2, 1 ST FLOOR, 5948-5949 CENTRAL CIRCLE-II BASTI HARPHOOL SINGH, DELHI FARIDABAD GHAZIABAD PAN : AABCG 0343 G [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] DATE OF HEARING : 20.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.07.2016 APPELLANT BY : SHRI SATYEN SETHI , ADV SHRI ARTA TRANA PANDA, ADV RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K. SAROHA, C IT-DR ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-CENTRAL, GURGAON, DATED 14/ 11/2013 FOR A.YS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN BOTH THE APPEALS: 2 ITA NO. 336/D EL/2014 2 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW THE CIT(A), CENTRAL, GURGAON WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT GIVING THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT OF B EING HEARD, AS THE NOTICE DATED 11 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 FIXING THE DATE F HEARING WAS NEVER SERVED ON THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW THE CIT(A), CENTRAL GURGAON WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 16,72,386/- [RS. 37,52,977/- IN AY. 2009-10 U/S 271 AAA] U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE HEARING OF THE ARGUMEN TS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN COMING T O A HASTE AND ARBITRARY CONCLUSION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT MAKING ANY EFFORTS TO ENQUI RE AND ASCERTAIN THE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. AR ALSO SUB MITTED THAT THE BALD CONCLUSION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY OB JECTIVE REASONING IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE LD. AR FURTHER STRENUOUSLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT AT AL L JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVIN G PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE ASSESSEE NEVER RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 11.11.2013 AND WHICH WAS NEVER SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. AR C ONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS 1 6,72,386/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN A.Y 2008-09 AND RS.37,52,97 7/- IN AY 2009-10. 3 ITA NO. 336/D EL/2014 3 3. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS QUITE JUSTIFIED I N UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE AO AND LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) O F THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BEFO RE US. WE FIND FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE I SSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THE AO IN A P ROPER MANNER AND FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN APPRECIATED IN A JUDICIOUS MANN ER. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE PAS SED THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE BASIS OF FOREGOING DISCUSSION AND CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE LD. CIT(A)S CONCLUSION, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN HASTE BY PA SSING A CRYPTIC ORDER WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSEE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HE ARD, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) H AS ALSO NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND FACTS OF THE CASE AN D SIMPLY FOLLOWED THE AOS CONCLUSION AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) TOO HAS NOT GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF HEARIN G. THE LD. DR HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, HE RAISED NO SERIOUS OBJECTION IF THE APPEAL IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THEREFORE, IN 4 ITA NO. 336/D EL/2014 4 THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE , WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IN BOTH THE AYS TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE CIT(A) SHALL PROVIDE DUE AND PROPER OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT BEING PREJUDICED WITH THE EARLIER IMPUGNED ORDER. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN BOTH THE AYS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.07 .2016. SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (C.M. GAR G) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27 TH JULY, 2016 VL/ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI