Juhi Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3420/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7202 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYANT MISHRA
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.3420/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 JUHI INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD., DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, L-77, LAJPAT NAGAR-II, VS. CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN: AAACJ2146B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAY ANT MISHRA, CIT-DR. O R D E R PER C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)S ORDER DATED 22.01.2009 PERTAINING TO TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 BY TAKING FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1(A) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT BY OBS ERVING HOWEVER, ON 19 TH JANUARY, 2009 ALSO NO ONE HAD ATTENDED THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IT SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL. THEREFORE, APPE LLANTS APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 1(B) THAT THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE NON-SP EAKING ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE MERIT OF THE CASE WAS NOT JUST AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS DEFAULT OF 2 APPEARANCE OF THE APPELLANT ON THE ADJOURNED DATE O F HEARING WAS FOR UNAVOIDABLE AND SUFFICIENT REASONS. 2. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER BE HEARD FOR DECISION ON MERITS. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE. NONE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT. 3. ON PERUSAL OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER, W E FIND THAT HE HAS MERELY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON THEIR MERITS. I N THE BODY OF THE ORDER THE LEARNED CIT(A) STATED THAT THE MATTER WAS SOMETIME FIXED ON 12 TH JANUARY, 2009, WHEN THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 19 TH JANUARY, 2009 AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES AR AS HE WAS OUT OF STATION. THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE CIT(A) AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICE FIXING THE DATE ON 19 TH JANUARY, 2009, WAS EVER SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE, RESTO RE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR HIS DECISION ON MERIT AFTER PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE HIS SAY. WE HE REBY DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITHIN 2 MONTHS FR OM THE END OF THE MONTH, IN WHICH THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND THEN, SHALL TAKE NECESSARY INSTRUCTION FROM THE LEA RNED CIT(A) ABOUT THE FRESH FIXATION OF APPEAL FOR HEARING ON MERITS. TH E ASSESSEE SHALL COOPERATE 3 WITH THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL AT THE EARLIEST WITHOUT INDULGING INTO DILATORY TACTICS BY TAKING UNDUE ADJ OURNMENTS. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS TREATED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AS INDICATED ABOVE. 5. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING WAS OVER ON 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (K.G. BANSAL) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.