Global Electricals, Ghaziabad V. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITA 3996/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0689 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH C CC C : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI K.D.RANJAN K.D.RANJAN K.D.RANJAN K.D.RANJAN, AM , AM , AM , AM ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. 3996/DEL/2010 3996/DEL/2010 3996/DEL/2010 3996/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 2005 2005 2005 - -- - 06 0606 06 M/S GLOBAL ELECTRICALS, M/S GLOBAL ELECTRICALS, M/S GLOBAL ELECTRICALS, M/S GLOBAL ELECTRICALS, SM SMSM SM- -- -49, SHASTRI NAGAR, 49, SHASTRI NAGAR, 49, SHASTRI NAGAR, 49, SHASTRI NAGAR, GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD. PAN NO.AAFFG2988L. PAN NO.AAFFG2988L. PAN NO.AAFFG2988L. PAN NO.AAFFG2988L. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME T INCOME T INCOME T INCOME T AX OFFICER, AX OFFICER, AX OFFICER, AX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -1(2), 1(2), 1(2), 1(2), GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SMT.MONA MOHANTY, SR.DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER R.P.TOLANI, J PER R.P.TOLANI, J PER R.P.TOLANI, J PER R.P.TOLANI, JM : M : M : M : THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL. FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED:- 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE CANNON OF TAXATION. 2. THE AO HAS IGNORED THE LAW AND INTERPRETED IT WRONGLY. 3. THE APPEAL WAS REJECTED BY CIT EX PARTE. BUT WE DID NOT GET ANY NOTICE FOR HEARING OF THE CASE. 4. THE AO HAS VITIATED BY THE FACT, FINDING AND REA CHED THE ASSESSMENT ONLY ON THE PRESUMPTIONS AND ASSUMPT IONS AND ON ANY RELEVANT EVIDENCES OR CIRCUMSTANCES. 5. THERE WAS ELECTRIC CONTRACT WORK ON VERY SMALL L EVEL DURING AY 2004-05 AND 2003-04. WE COULD ACHIEVE A CONTRACT OF VERY HIGH LEVEL DURING THE FY 2004-05. THE CONTRACT WAS TO INSTALL THE ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION L INE IN THE HILLY AREAS OF UTTARANCHAL. MOREOVER WE WERE OF NO T SO MUCH EXPERIENCE & SKILL. SO OUR NP RATE IS ON LOWE R SIDE. THE WORK TAKEN IN EARLIER YEARS IN GHAZIABAD AND NE AR BY AREAS THAT TOO OF SMALL AMOUNT. THE LABOUR TO BE E NGAGED IS AVAILABLE ONLY IN THAT AREA AND THE OUTPUT WAS A LSO VERY LOWER AS THERE IS NOT A RECURRING FEATURE OF SUCH T YPE OF WORK IN UTTARANCHAL. ITA-3996/DEL/2010 2 THEREFORE IT IS PRAYED THAT ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 2. NONE ATTENDED FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HE ARING. THE ISSUE BEING SIMPLE IS BEING DECIDED EX-PARTE QUA TH E ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED DR AND PERUSING RE LEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS, IT EMERGES THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DEALING IN INSTALLATION OF ELECTRI CAL TRANSMISSION LINES IN HILLY AREAS OF UTTARANCHAL. AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL. LEARNED CIT(A) PA SSED THE EX-PARTE APPELLATE ORDER HOLDING THAT NONE ATTENDED NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, NO NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON IT. THE IMPUGNED EX-PARTE ORDER OF LEARN ED CIT(A) DOES NOT GIVE ANY OBSERVATION ABOUT ANY NOTICE HAVING BEEN S ERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. PARAGRAPH 4 REFERS TO FIXING OF HEARING A NUMBER OF TIMES AND NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICES ISSUED. IN OUR VIEW, ON THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY SHOULD FIRS T ASCERTAIN WHETHER ANY NOTICE AT ALL HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE O R NOT. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THERE IS REFERENCE TO NOTICE ISSUED BUT NO REFERENCE TO SERVICE OF ANY NOTICE. IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANT IAL JUSTICE, ASSESSEE DESERVES ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO BE GIVEN. WE SET ASIDE THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO DECIDE TH E APPEAL AFRESH AFTER SERVING A NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME CAN BE A CHIEVED AMONG OTHER THINGS BY GETTING IT SERVED THROUGH THE NOTIC E SERVER. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 6 TH JANUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (K.D.RANJAN (K.D.RANJAN (K.D.RANJAN (K.D.RANJAN ) )) ) (R.P.TOLANI (R.P.TOLANI (R.P.TOLANI (R.P.TOLANI ) )) ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 06.01.2011. VK. ITA-3996/DEL/2010 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR