Thomas International Publishing Co. India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3961/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6585 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: AZIZ KHAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA , JM IT A NO. 3961 /DEL/201 5 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2007 - 08 ITA NO. 3962/DEL/2015 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2008 - 09 THOMAS INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING CO. INDIA PVT. LTD., L - 41, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110001 VS DY. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 16(1 ), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A A A CT8392F ASSESSEE BY : SH. AZIZ KHAN, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. K. TIWARI , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 25 .0 7 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT : 27 .07 .201 8 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM : THESE AP PEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS EACH DATED 10.03.2015 OF LD. CIT(A) - 19, NEW DELHI. 2. SINCE, THE APPEALS RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE , HAVING COMMON ISSUES , WERE HEARD TOGETHER, SO, THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOL IDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 3. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE S E APPEALS RELATE TO THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY OF RS.4,52,360/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND RS.3,86,614/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 RESPECTIV ELY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO S. 3961 & 3962 /DE L/201 5 THOMAS INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING CO. 2 4. FACTS OF THE CASES IN BRIEF ARE THAT TH E AO LEVIED THE IMPUGNED PENALTIES FOR THE REASONS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE S MADE BY THE AO WERE UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSES SEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE PENALTIES BY PASSING THE EX - PARTE ORDER S . HE SIMPLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY TO THE NOTICES ISSUED FOR HEARING AND THAT THE NOTICE S SENT BY SPEED POST HAD NOT RETURNED UNSERVED. 5 . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO NOTICE FOR HEARI NG WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, T HEREFORE, THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE IMPUGNED ORD ERS HAD BEEN PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 6 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEA RD WERE PROVIDED BY TH E LD. CIT(A), H OWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATE AND NEVER TURNED UP WHENEVER THE CASES WERE FIXED FOR HEARING, SO, THERE WAS NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DECIDE THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE EX - PARTE. 7 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS WERE PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) EX - PARTE , HOWEVER, IT IS NOT MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICE FOR ITA NO S. 3961 & 3962 /DE L/201 5 THOMAS INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING CO. 3 HEARING WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HE SI MPLY STATED THAT AS PER THE INDIA POST WEBSITE, THE LAST NOTICE WAS DULY DELIVERED. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED UPON WHOM, WHETHER ON THE ASSESSEE OR ANY OTHER PERSON . ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE STATED THAT NO NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM . WE , THEREFORE, BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, DEEM IT APPR OPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. ( ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27 /0 7 / 201 8 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27 /07 /2018 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR