The Institute of Internal Auditors Delhi Chapter, New Delhi V. ITO(Exemption), Ward-2(3), New Delhi

ITA 3464/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4236 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S ANANT
• Assessee Lawyers: RA VI BHATIA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3464/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNAL VS. ITO(EXEMPTION) AUDITORS DELHI CHAPTER, WARD 2(3), 201, 2 ND FLOOR, DEVIKA TOWER, NEW DELHI NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110 019 (PAN: AABTT0669F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. RAVI BHATIA, CA REVENUE BY : SH. B.S. ANANT, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 09.3.2018 OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS)-40, NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ORDER DATED 8.3.2018 PASSED BY THE CIT (A) AND THE ORDER DATED 31.3.2013 PASSED BY THE ITO, U/S. 1 43(3) ARE BOTH BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GREATLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN :- A) PASSING AN EXPARTE ORDER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WH ICH IS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION STATING THAT NONE APPEARED ON 23.11.2017, 14.12.2017, 12.1.2018 AND FINALLY ON 18 .3.2018, 2 WHEN NO NOTICE WHATSOEVER WERE EVER MENTIONED IN AP PELLATE ORDER AS PER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF SPEED POST DEP ARTMENT OBTAINED BY THE APPELLANT. B) IN NOT DISCUSSING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ITO ON MERITS AT ALL AND DISMISSING OF THE APPEALS WITHOUT EVEN DISCUSSING THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE. C) IN WRONGLY DISMISSING THE APPEALS AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ITO QUOTING WRONG FACTS AND W RONG OBSERVATIONS IN THE APPELLANT ORDER. D) IN NOT DISCUSSING ANYTHING RELATING TO THE TWO A DDITIONS OF RS. 11,32,646/- MADE BY THE ITO IN AN ILLEGAL MANNE R AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN UTTER DISREGARD OF ALL NOR MS OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) ARE UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND IN UTTER DISREGARD AND HAVE BEEN MADE J UST FOR THE SAKE OF MAKING SOME ADDITIONS IN THE CASE. PRAYER:- THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) AMOUNTING TO RS. 1132,646/- BE DELETED SINCE THEY A RE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAVE BEEN WRONGLY MADE. 3 3. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 4. DURING THE HEARING, LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, HA S STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN EXPARTE ORDER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, WHEN NO NOTICE WHATSOEVER WERE EVER MENTIONED IN APPELLA TE ORDER AS PER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF SPEED POST DEPARTMENT OBTAI NED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) ALSO NOT DISCUSSED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ITO ON MERITS AT ALL AND DISM ISSED APPEAL WITHOUT EVEN DISCUSSING THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO TH E FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, UNDER THE LAW, AF TER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION TO THE REQUES T OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. I FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT LD. CIT(A) PASSED AN EXPARTE ORDER AG AINST THE ASSESSEE AND DID NOT DISCUSS THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON MERITS, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW . THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE 4 LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME A FRESH, UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FILE ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCES, IF ANY, TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS C ASE AND FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS A ND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 01-11-2018. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 01-11-2018 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.