M/s. Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3464/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 346420114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS ANUSHA KHURANA
• Assessee Lawyers: V K BAJAJ
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH DELHI BENCH DELHI BENCH DELHI BENCH G GG G : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI K.G.BANSAL, AM AND SHRI K.G.BANSAL, AM AND SHRI K.G.BANSAL, AM AND SHRI K.G.BANSAL, AM ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO.3464 3464 3464 3464/DEL/20 /DEL/20 /DEL/20 /DEL/201 11 11 11 1 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 200 200 200 2002 22 2- -- -03 0303 03 M/S SAHNI SILK MILLS (P) M/S SAHNI SILK MILLS (P) M/S SAHNI SILK MILLS (P) M/S SAHNI SILK MILLS (P) LTD., LTD., LTD., LTD., B BB B- -- -134, PHASE 134, PHASE 134, PHASE 134, PHASE- -- -I, I,I, I, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN PAN PAN PAN AAACS9679Q. AAACS9679Q. AAACS9679Q. AAACS9679Q. VS. VS. VS. VS. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -7(1), 7(1), 7(1), 7(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.K.BAJAJ, FCA. RESPONDENT BY : MRS.ANUSHA KHURANA, SR.DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER R.P.TOLANI, JM PER R.P.TOLANI, JM PER R.P.TOLANI, JM PER R.P.TOLANI, JM : : : : THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. EX-PARTE DISPOSAL OF APPEAL BY THE CIT(A) WITHOU T GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 2. THAT THE LEARNED ACIT HAS ERRED IN LAW & FACTS WHILE DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.3,08,129/- U/S 35DDA O F THE INCOME TAX ACT ON THE WRONG INTERPRETATION OF L AW IN TREATING THE SERVICE COMPENSATION PAYMENTS MADE TO EMPLOYEES AS PAYMENTS FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT WITHOUT EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE LEARNED ACIT HAS ERRED IN LAW & FACTS WHILE DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.14,83,714/- OUT OF INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA-3464/DEL/2011 2 2. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, CONTENDS THAT:- (I) NONE OF THE NOTICES OF HEARING SENT BY THE CIT(A)S OFFICE WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, DUE TO WHICH, HE COULD NOT ATTEND THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHICH RESULTED IN EX-PARTE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. SINCE THE NOTICES OF HEARING WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E, IT WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ITS NON- APPEARANCE. (II) EVEN IN EX-PARTE PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) SHOULD DECI DE THE APPEAL ON MERITS WHEREAS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN-LIMINE BY THE CIT(A) WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 3. LEARNED DR IS HEARD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED TH E RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE IMPUGNED EX-PARTE ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL HAS BEEN PASSED IN-LIMINE BY T HE CIT(A) WHICH IS NOT TENABLE AND EVEN IN EX-PARTE APPEAL, TH E CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE GROUNDS ON MERITS. BESIDES , SINCE THE ASSESSEE STATES TO HAVE RECEIVED NO NOTICE OF HEARI NG, ON THIS GROUND ALSO, THE ASSESSEE PRAYS THAT IT WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 5. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FAC TS, ENDS OF JUSTICE WILL BE MET BY RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN ITA-3464/DEL/2011 3 OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE UNDERTAKES TO ATTEND THE CIT(A)S OFFICE AND COLLEC T THE NOTICE OF HEARING BESIDES TO INTIMATE THE CHANGE IN ADDRESS, IF ANY, BY AN APPLICATION TO THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES, I.E., THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 7 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (K.G.BANSAL (K.G.BANSAL (K.G.BANSAL (K.G.BANSAL) )) ) (R.P.TOLANI (R.P.TOLANI (R.P.TOLANI (R.P.TOLANI) )) ) ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 07.09.2011. VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR