Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
365220114 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
14-09-2012
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
12-09-2012
Assessment Year
2007-2008
Appeal Filed On
12-07-2012
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V.MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULBHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.- 3652/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2007-08) DEHRADUN AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. VS ITO, B-8, MAYAPURI INDL. AREA, WARD 10(1 ), PHASE-I, NEW DELHI-64. NEW DELHI. PAN-AAACD0210E (A PPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY: SH. M.P.RASTOGI, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SH. AROOP KR. SINHA , SR. DR APPEAL HEARD ON-12.09.2012 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON-14.09.2012 ORDER PER KULBHARAT, JM THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-V, NEW DELHI. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 1). THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL ) IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE. 2). THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O WHILE DISALLOWING THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES ARBITRARILY & WITHOUT ANY JUSTIF ICATION :- I) BUILDING REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 179229.00 II) BANK CHARGES 243273.00 III) INTEREST ON LOAN FROM BANK 47679.00 IV) DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENSES 30400.00 3). THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING THE REPLY FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON 18.04.2012 ON THE SPECIFIC REQUEST MADE BY THE APPELLANT ON 17 .04.2012. I.T.A .NO.- 3652/DEL/2012 2 4). THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN NOT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLA NT WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 5). THAT THE RATIO OF THE JUDGEMENTS REPORTED IN 1 18 ITR 461 (SC) AND 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO T HE APPELLANTS CASE. 6). THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT P REJUDICE TO ONE AND ANOTHER. 7). YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVE, TO ADD, ALTER, A MEND, AND/OR FOREGO ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE T IME OF HEARING. 3. THE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HEREIN AFTER REFER TO AS THE A CT) WAS FRAMED. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS:- I) BUILDING REPAIR & MAINT. EXPENSES 179229.00 II) BANK CHARGES 243273.00 III) INTEREST EXPENSES 47679.00 IV) DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENSES 30400.00 4. THE ASSESSEE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE APPEAL WAS FIXED ON HEARING ON 17.04.2012. LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 2 OF HIS ORDER HAS GIVEN DETAILS OF HEARING, SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- NOTICE ISSUED DATE OF HEARING REMARKS 29.09.2010 26.10.2010 SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT 26.10.2010 18.11.2010 -DO- 18.11.2010 ADJOURNED TILL FURTHER NOTICE 11.10.2011 01.11.2011 NONE ATTENDED 23.11.2011 01.12.2011 SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT 07.02.2011 28.12.2011 NONE ATTENDED 02.04.2012 17.04.2012 RETURNED BACK BY POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH REMARKS NO SUCH PERSON I.T.A .NO.- 3652/DEL/2012 3 5. LD. CIT(A) IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, DISMISSE D THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE O RDER BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SH. M.P.RASTOGI, SUBMI TTED THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 17.04.2012 BUT INADVERTENTLY, DATE WAS REC ORDED AS 18.04.2012 AND THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 18.04.2012. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE, WERE NOT CONSIDERED AND ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELO W AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY. HE CHOSE NOT TO ATTEND THE HEARING AND MAKE SUBMISSIONS, THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION AND ALSO NON-AVAILABILITY OF ANY SUBMIS SIONS ALONG WITH EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSE E. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIE W THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THIS APPEAL BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE O F LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE BACK THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDIC ATION. LD. CIT(A) WOULD GIVE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE CONCE RNED PARTIES AND SHALL PASS I.T.A .NO.- 3652/DEL/2012 4 A SPEAKING ORDER. HENCE, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.09.2012. SD/- SD/- (S.V.MEHROTRA) (KULBHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14/09/2012 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI
