Mrs. Krishna Singhal, Gurgaon V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3680/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 368020114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN RAWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NARAYAN SINGH ASSTT
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3680 /DEL/201 4 A.Y. : 200 8 - 0 9 MRS. KRISHNA SINGHAL, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, H.NO. 1144, SECTOR - 15, PART - II, WARD 35(1), GURGAON, HARYANA - 122001 NEW DELHI (PAN:APLPS8454A ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. NARAYAN SINGH, ASSTT. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. ROBIN RAWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 7 - 7 - 2015 DATE OF ORDER : 20 - 7 - 2015 PER H.S. SIDHU: JM O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XXVII, NEW DELHI DATED 17 . 1 .201 4 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 . 2. T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: - 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS MUCH AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 9,94,493/ - WHICH WAS ERRONEOUSLY MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APP ELLANT U/SEC. 145 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2 2. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL) HAD PASSED THE APPELLATE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) IN CONTEXT TO ABO VE GROUND OF APPEAL AT S.NO. 2 HAS ERRONEOUSLY HELD THAT THE ALLEGED NOTICE FIXED FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON 10 TH JAN, 2014 WAS SERVED ON THE APPELLANT COMPANY ON 21.12.2013 IS NOT CORRECT. THIS IMPUGNED NOTICE SENT THROUGH SPEED POST WAS NEVER BEEN SERV ED ON THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT IS DEPRIVED OF AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. THAT THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) WHILE SUSTAINING THE AFORESAID TRADING ADDITION OF RS . 9,94,493/ - (HAS MERELY RELIED UPON TO THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING ANY INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT APPLYING HIS OWN MIND. HE, WHILE ACCEPTING THE G.P RATIO DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER HAS NOT CONFRONTED THE DETAILS COLLECTED BY HIM OF THE TWO COMPARABLE CASES WHICH WERE USED BY HIM AS TOTAL AGAINST THE APPELLANT. THE CIT(A) DID NOT ALSO PROVIDE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO DISCUSS THE INFORMATION COLLECTED BY THE LE ARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE TWO COMPARABLE WHICH IS AGAIN AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3 IT IS, THEREFORE, KINDLY PRAYED THAT ON THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) MAY PLEASE BE QUASHED AS THE APPELLATE ORDE R WERE PASSED WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY PRAY FOR AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH THE APPEAL FIELD. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING HER CLAIM BEFORE HIM. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR FINAL HEARING ON 10 TH JANUARY, 2014 AND THE HEARING NOTICE WAS SENT THROUGH THE SPEED POST NO. ED088897007IN. AS PER THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE SPEED POST WEBSITE, THE ABOVE NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ON 21.12.2013. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO ATTEND TH E HEARING ON 10 TH JANUARY, 2013, I AM CONSTRAINED TO COMPLETE THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 5. AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), I FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, I FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS IN HURRY TO 4 COMPLETE THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND MENTIONED THAT APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO ATTEND THE HEARING ON 10 TH JANUARY, 2013, HOWEVER, THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 10 TH JANUAR Y, 2014. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN THIS REGARD. HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IN THIS CASE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE NEEDS TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AS PER LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH AND PASS A PROPER AND SPEAKING ORDER . NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE 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 OPEN COURT ON 20 /7/201 5 . SD/ - [ H.S. SIDHU ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 20 /7/201 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 5