SHRI RAVI KIRAN SINGH, Indore V. THE ITO 4(4)/CIT(A)II, Indore

ITA 367/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 36722714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE (SINGLE MEMBER CASE) BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 367/IND/2015 A.Y. : 2008-09 SHRI RAVI KIRAN SINGH, ITO, 4(4), INDORE VS. INDORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. AJYPS6498P APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. R. A. VERMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 . 0 9 .201 5 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, INDORE, DATED 11.12.2013 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. -: 2: - 2 2. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 1.7.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,39,770/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED A ND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE AO PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER U/S 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE NOTICE DATED 18.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ALSO SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON THE VERY SAME DAY AT 4.30 P.M. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT, BUT THE L D. CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. SENIOR D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. I H AVE HEARD THE LD. SENIOR D.R. I FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS SIMPLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY APPLYING MULTIPLAN INDIA LI MITED, 38 ITD 320. THE PRINCIPLE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM IS THE BASIC CONCEPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE EXPRESSION AUDI ALTERAM -: 3: - 3 PARTEM IMPLIES THAT A PERSON MUST BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY T O DEFEND HIMSELF. THIS PRINCIPLE IS SINE QUA NON OF EVERY CIVILIZED SOCIETY. THE RIGHT TO NOTICE, RIGHT TO P RESENT CASE AND EVIDENCE, RIGHT TO REBUT ADVERSE EVIDENCE, RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINATION, RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION, DISCLOS URE OF EVIDENCE TO PARTY, REPORT OF ENQUIRY TO BE SHOWN TO THE OTHER PARTY AND REASONED DECISIONS OR SPEAKING ORDERS. WE FIND THAT THE RIGHT OF HEARING IS DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA, WH EREIN HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT RULE OF FAIR HE ARING IS NECESSARY BEFORE PASSING ANY ORDER. I FIND THAT IT IS PRE- DECISION HEARING STANDARD OF NORM OF RULE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. I FIND THAT IN THIS INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT GIVEN PROPER HEARING. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW T HAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING AND TO REPRESENT HIS CASE. THEREFORE, I ALLOW THIS APPE AL. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A) WITHIN 2 MONTHS AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. TH E LD. CIT(A) SHOULD DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. -: 4: - 4 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2015. CPU* 229