M/s. Executive Engineer, Rohtak V. ITO(TDS), Rohtak

ITA 3538/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3490 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-04-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR SHARMA SENIOR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JM ITA NOS.3538 TO 3542/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROVL. DIVN. NO.1, PWD B& R ROHTAK, OPPOSITE T.B. HOSPITAL, GOHANA ROAD, ROHTAK. PAN NO. RTKEO0693A VS INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), ROHTAK. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. ANIL K UMAR SHARMA, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.04.2017 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 26.03.2014 OF LD. CIT (A), ROHTAK. ALL THESE APPEALS RELATE TO THE SUSTENANCE OF PENAL TY LEVIED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) AND WERE HEA RD TOGETHER, SO, THESE ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOL IDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. ITA NOS.3538 TO 3542/DEL/2014 2 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE APPEALS ARE HEARD EX- PARTE AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. 3. IT IS NOTICED THAT ALL THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN D ECIDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) EX-PARTE IN LIMINE. THE LD. DR SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DISMI SS THESE APPEALS. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASES, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE LD. CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE AND HAD NOT DISCUSSED THE MERITS OF THE CASE. IT IS ALSO NOTIC ED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) SIMPLY STATED THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUE D ON 25.02.2014 FIXING THE APPEALS ON 07.03.2014 FOR FIN AL HEARING. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT MENTION AS TO WHETHER THE SAID NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. I T IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. IN THE PRESENT CASES, SINCE DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS NOT G RANTED BY THE LD. CIT (A), WE, THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPROPRI ATE TO SET ITA NOS.3538 TO 3542/DEL/2014 3 ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) FO R ADJUDICATION AFRESH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER P ROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/04/2017 ) SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED: 17/04/2017 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR