SHRI TANWARSINGH CHOUHAN, Dewas V. The ITO 1(2), Ujjain

ITA 346/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 34622714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK SURJANC A
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE (SINGLE MEMBER CASE) BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NOS.346, 347 & 348/IND/2014 A.Y. : 1998-99, 2001-02 & 2002-03 SHRI TANWAR SINGH CHOUHAN, VILLAGE RAJODA, DISTT. DEWAS ITO, 1(2), UJJAIN VS. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. AEFPC1289Q APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHOK SURJAN,C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.A.VERMA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 14.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.10.2015 O R D E R THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF CIT(A), UJJAIN, DATED 29.01.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99, 2001-02 & 2002-03 . SHRI TANWAR SINGH CHOUHAN, GRAM RAJODA, DISTT. DEWA S VS. ITO, 1(2), UJJAIN I.T.A.NOS. 346,347 & 348/I ND/2014 A.Y. 1998-99,2001-02 & 2002-03 2 2 2. IN THESE APPEALS, THE COMMON GROUNDS HAVE BEEN T AKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, THE GROUNDS TAKEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ARE REPRODUCE D BELOW :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT BAS ED ON RECORDS, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISION OF LAW, UNTENABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM ON 24.10.2007 WHILE PASSING THE ORDER UNDER REFERENCE SINCE SUCH SUBMISSIONS WERE VERY RELEVANT IN DECIDING THE APPEAL. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSIN G SHRI TANWAR SINGH CHOUHAN, GRAM RAJODA, DISTT. DEWA S VS. ITO, 1(2), UJJAIN I.T.A.NOS. 346,347 & 348/I ND/2014 A.Y. 1998-99,2001-02 & 2002-03 3 3 THE APPEAL AND ALSO IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT QUASH ING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148/14. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE COMMON ORDERS IN ALL THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PASSED EX-PAR TE AND NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSE SSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR THE RESTORA TION OF THE APPEALS TO THE LD. CIT(A). 3. THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT TO IT. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE N ECESSARY RECORDS. I FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 26.10.2007, 9.1.2009, 24.3.2009, 17.9.20 09, 13.3.2009, 23,4.2013, 23,1,2914 AND 29.1.2014, BUT NO DETAILS WERE FILED. SHRI ASHOK SURJAN, C. A. ATTEND ED ON A FEW DATES BUT HE SIMPLY SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND NO DETAI LS WERE FILED. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE SHRI TANWAR SINGH CHOUHAN, GRAM RAJODA, DISTT. DEWA S VS. ITO, 1(2), UJJAIN I.T.A.NOS. 346,347 & 348/I ND/2014 A.Y. 1998-99,2001-02 & 2002-03 4 4 ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTE D IN PURSUING HIS APPEALS FOR THREE YEARS. THE PRINCIPLE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM IS THE BASIC CONCEPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE EXPRESSION AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM IMPLIES THAT A PERSON MUST BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF. THIS PRINCI PLE IS SINE QUA NON OF EVERY CIVILIZED SOCIETY. THE RIGHT TO NOTICE, RIGHT TO PRESENT CASE AND EVIDENCE, RIGHT TO REBUT ADVERSE E VIDENCE, RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINATION, RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESEN TATION , DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE TO PARTY, REPORT OF ENQUIRY TO BE SHOWN TO THE OTHER PARTY AND REASONED DECISIONS OR SPEAKI NG ORDERS. I FIND THAT THE RIGHT OF HEARING IS DECIDED BY THE HO N'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNIO N OF INDIA, WHEREIN HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT RULE OF FAIR HEARING IS NECESSARY BEFORE PASSING ANY ORDER. I FIND THAT IT IS PRE-DECISION HEARING STANDARD OF NORM OF RULE OF AUDI ALTERM PARTEM. I FIND THAT IN THIS INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN PROPER HEARING. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW T HAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING AND TO REPRESENT HIS CASE. THEREFORE, I ALLOW THESE APP EALS ON THE SHRI TANWAR SINGH CHOUHAN, GRAM RAJODA, DISTT. DEWA S VS. ITO, 1(2), UJJAIN I.T.A.NOS. 346,347 & 348/I ND/2014 A.Y. 1998-99,2001-02 & 2002-03 5 5 CONDITION THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE PRESENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO REMAIN PRE SENT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITHIN 2 MONTHS AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD DECIDE THE APPEALS AFTER GIVI NG DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 14 TH OCTOBER, 2015. CPU* 14