M/s. Madhusudan Fiber Goods (P) Ltd., Ghaziabad V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3814/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7269 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JAISWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-3: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3814/DEL/2014 A.Y. : 2006-07 M/S MADHUSUDAN FIBRE GOODS VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CI RCLE-17, (P) LTD., NEW DLEHI C/O AKHILESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE, CHAMBER NO. 206-207, ANSAL SATYAM, RDC RAJ NAGAR, GHAZIABAD (PAN:AAECM0840R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. AKHILESH KUMAR, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. KK JAISWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 15-06-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 15-06-2016 O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.4.2014 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. PAGE 2 OF 9 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, NO NEED TO REPEAT HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSE E DRAW MY ATTENTION TOWARDS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE THEM. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE IS SUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-COOPERATION ON ACCOUNT OF THE AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE SUFFERED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR, CA PROP. M/S ANIL PRAHALAD & CO. C-42M RDC, RAJ NAGAR, GHAZIABAD DATED 25.6.2014 IN WHICH S H. ANIL KUMAR, CA HAS STATED THAT HE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AUT HORITIES BELOW DUE TO HIS PERSONAL PROBLEM AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE EXPARTE WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASS ESSEE STATED THAT DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE COUNSEL, ASSESSEE SHO ULD NOT BE SUFFERED AND REQUESTED THAT ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING PAGE 3 OF 9 ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS CITED THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- - MAHAVEERPRASAD JAIN VS. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 331 (MP- HIGH COURT) - ITAT, A BENCH, DELHI DECISION DATED 9.6.2011 IN THE CASE OF AYUSH FINCAP PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ACIT. 3.1 LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE PAPER B OOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 66 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED VARIOUS TYP ES OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE AND STATED THAT DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE, THE ISSUE IN DISP UTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. HE UN DERTAKES TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ASSURED THE BENCH TH AT HE WILL NOT SEEK ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT AND WILL COOPERATE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF T HE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEV ANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH ME, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHI CH HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE EXPARTE. NO DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NON-COOPERATIVE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. BUT THE NON- PAGE 4 OF 9 APPEARANCE OCCURRED DUE TO NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE, SH. ANIL KUMAR, CA W HO HAS FILED THE AFFIDAVIT. THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT ARE REPRODUC ED AS UNDER:- AFFIDAVIT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR, CA PROP. M/S ANIL PRAHALAD & CO., C-42, RDC, RAJNAGAR, GHAZIABAD IN THE MATTER OF : M/S MADHUSUDAN FIBRE GOODS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT AY 2006-07 TO 2008-09 I, ANIL KUMAR, S/O LATE SH. PRAHLAD SARAN GUPTA, R/O RDC 131, RAJ NAGAR, GHAZIABAD DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY DECLARE AND STATE ON OATH AS UNDER:- 1. THAT MY AFORESAID IDENTIFICATION IS CORRECT AND BEING AUTH. REP. OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS CONVERSANT WITH THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE SAID CASE IS COMPETENT TO SWEAR THIS AFFIDAVIT. 2. THAT, THOUGH I COULD NOT APPEAR OWING TO MY PERSONAL PROBLEMS BUT I DID APPEAR ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING O N 24.4.14 BEFORE LD. CIT(A)-II, NEW DELHI ALONGWITH P OWER OF ATTORNEY AND WS ETC. FOR ONE YEAR AY 2006-07 AND PAGE 5 OF 9 SOUGHT ONE LAST ADJOURNMENT FOR THE PREPARATION OF OTHER APPEALS FOR AY 2007-08 AND AY 2008-09 TILL 15 TH MAY. 3. THAT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ENTERTAIN THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS AND WS ETC. FOR AY 2006-07 AND STAED THAT AS THE MATTER IS CONNECTED FOR ALL THE YEARS HENCE AL L THE MATTERS CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER ONLY. 4. THAT, THOUGH NOTHING WAS TAKEN ON RECORD BUT ORALLY ALLOWED TIME TILL 9 TH MAY, 2014 STATED TO COME WITH FULL PREPARATION FOR ALL THE THREE APPEALS BEFORE 10 TH MAY, 2014 OR OTHERWISE EX-PARTY ORDERS WILL BE PASSED AFTER 9 TH MAY IN ALL THE APPEALS. 5. THAT, WHEN I VISITED ON 5 TH & 6 TH MAY, 2014 WITH FULL PREPARATION FOR ALL THE APPEALS THAN I WAS COMMUNICATE D THAT ORDERS FOR ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE ALREADY PASSED IN THE APRIL, 14 AND ORDERS ARE ALREADY UNDER DISPATCH OR DISPATCHED. 6. THAT THOUGH I FAILED TO ATTEND THE MATTER IN THE ABO VE CIRCUMSTANCES BUT ASSESSEE HAS NO ROLE FOR THE SAME WHO HAS FULL FAITH ON ME AND EVEN NOW ASKED TO COOPERATE FOR 2 ND APPEAL. SO MAY GOD HELP HIM. PAGE 6 OF 9 SD/- DEPONENT VERIFICATION I, ANIL KUMAR, S/O LATE SH. PRAHLAD SARAN GUPTA, R/O RDC- 131, RAJ NAGAR, GHAZIABAD DO HEREBY CONFIRM THAT TH E CONTENTS OF ABOVE AFFIDAVIT FORM PARA 1 TO PARA 6 ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND NOTHING RELEVANT HAS BEEN CONCEALED THEREFROM. VERIFIED AT GHAZIABAD ON THIS THE 25 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014. 5.1 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF T HE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 66 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF ITR ACKNOWLEDGMENT WITH COMPUT ATION OF INCOME FOR CURRENT YEAR; COPY OF AUDIT REPORT WITH AUDITED BAL ANCE SHEET AND P&L A/C WITH ANNEXURES FOR THE AY 2006-07; COPY OF LED GER A/C WITH ALLOTMENT LETTER OF DDA OF PLOT NO. 2, VASANT KUNJ; C OPY OF RUNNING A/C OF PLOT NO. 2; COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF A/C, CONFI RMED LEDGER A/C AND COPY OF ITR/ COMPUTATION OF M/S THAPART HOMERS LTD; COPY OF COLLABORATION AGREEMENT DATED 31.3.06/ COLLABORATION CANCELLATION AGREEMENT DATED 27.3.2007 WITH NCJ INTERNATIONAL FIBRE GOODS LTD. / PAGE 7 OF 9 SCHDEVA BUILDCON P LTD.; COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF A/C AN D ITR FOR THE AY 06-07/08-09 OF HEPTA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. WITH BANK A /C OF RELEVANT YEAR; COPY OF RUNNING A/C WITH COPY OF CONFI RMATION OF A/C AND ITR FOR THE AY 06-07/07-08/08-09 OF NCJ INTERNATI ONAL LTD. WITH BANK A/C; COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF A/C AND ITR FOR THE AY 06-07/08-09 OF SACHDEVA BUILDCON PVT. LTD. WITH BANK A/C AND COPY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL OF PLOT NO. 2 VASANT KUNJ, DATED 30.6.07 AND THE AFORESAID AFFIDAVIT, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE ON THE PART OF THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE A SSESSEE EXPARTE, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING AL L THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN HIS POSSESSION FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM WHICH THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL/ REPRESENTATIVE HAS FILED IN THE SH APE OF PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 66 AS STATED ABOVE. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE ON THE PART OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE SUFFERED, HENCE, I AM SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE ASS ESSEE SHOULD COOPERATE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND NOT TO TAK E UNNECESSARY PAGE 8 OF 9 ADJOURNMENT. MY AFORESAID VIEW IS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- - MAHAVEERPRASAD JAIN VS. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 331 (MP- HIGH COURT) - ITAT, A BENCH, DELHI DECISION DATED 9.6.2011 IN THE CASE OF AYUSH FINCAP PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ACIT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15-06-2016. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 15/6/2016 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 PAGE 9 OF 9