Late Shri Lakshmi Mohan Gupta, Uttar Pradesh V. ACIT, Meerut

ITA 358/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0118 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 30-06-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV DUDEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY RASTOGI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 3 58 / DEL/ 2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3 58 /DEL/2013 BLOCK PERIOD ENDING ON 28.2.2000 (AY 1990 - 91 TO 2000 - 01) LATE SHRI LAKSHMI MOHAN GUPTA, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. AJAY GUPTA, SH. ANIRUDH GUPTA AND OTHERS 237, WESTEND ROAD, MEERUT CANTT (UP (PAN: ADJPG6650Q) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MERRUT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. AJAY RASTOGI, A.R. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. GAURAV DUDEJA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 30 - 06 - 2015 DATE OF ORDER : 30 - 06 - 2015 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : J M TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ), MEERUT DATED 1 . 10 .201 2 PERTAINING TO BLOCK PERIOD ENDING ON 28.2.2000 (A.Y. 1990 - 91 TO 2000 - 01) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE JUST AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE LEGAL ITA NO. 3 58 / DEL/ 2013 2 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE IMPOSING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL EX - PARTE AN D PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS NOT ALLOWED, VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL LAW AND JUSTICE. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE ON LEGAL HEIR AND PENALTY IS IN THE NATURE OF QUASI CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND LEGAL HEIRS CANNOT BE PENAL IZED FOR THE ACTION OF DECEASED. 4. THAT THE ADDITION TO THE DECLARED INCOME IS IN ITSELF BASED ON WRONG FACT AND NO EVIDENCE AND THUS IS NOT JUSTIFIED ADDITION. PENALTY IMPOSED IS ALSO WRONG THAT THE ADDITION ITSELF IS WRONG. 5. THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT STAT ED ABOVE THE PENALTY IMPOSED RS. 800000/ - IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND IS THUS ILLEGAL, UNJUST AGAINST THE FACT AND ALSO AGAINST THE LAW. 6. THAT THE ENTIRE PENALTY ORDER IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED, AGAINST THE FACT AS WELL AS AGAINST THE LAW. 7. THAT THE ASSESSEE RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL MENTIONED ABOVE. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORIT Y ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, NO NEED TO REPEAT HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. ITA NO. 3 58 / DEL/ 2013 3 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING SHRI AJAY RASTOGI, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. HE REQUESTED THAT IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE S IN DISPUTE AFRESH UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY SE RIOUS OBJECTION TO THE SAID REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE S AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. 4 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE ORDER S OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED TH E IMPUGNED ORDER IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE CONVENIENCE, FULL ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - APPELLATE ORDER AND GROUNDS OF DECISION U/S. 250 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 THIS APPEAL ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT DATED 26.11.2009 UNDER SECTION 158BFA(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IMPOSING A PENALTY OF RS. 80,00,000/ - ITA NO. 3 58 / DEL/ 2013 4 2. TWO NOTICES FOR COMPLIANCE ON 17.2.2012 AND 13.8.2012 WERE ISSUED TO WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPLIANCE. HOWEVER, ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT ON 13.8.2012 AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 28.8.2012. NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE ON 28.8.2012 AND THE CASE WAS FURTHER ADJO URNED FOR 17.9.2012. AGAIN NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. I HAVE, THEREFORE, NO HESITATION IN INFERRING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING HIS APPEAL. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/ - (P.K. GUPTA) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) MEERUT 5. AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER. HE SUMMARILY DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEA L. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN THIS REGARD. LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE ON MERITS. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT EVEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT IN THIS CASE THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO ITA NO. 3 58 / DEL/ 2013 5 CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH AND PASS A PROPER AND SPEAKING ORDER CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASSESS EE SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN C OURT ON 30/6 /20 15. SD/ - SD/ - [ S.V. MEHROTRA ] [ H.S. SIDHU ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 30 / 6 /201 5 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NO. 3 58 / DEL/ 2013 6