M/s Bajaj Steel Industries Ltd, Nagpur V. Dy. C.I.T Central Circle-2(3), Nagpur

ITA 42/NAG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 4223914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRITI JAIN DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: R V LOYA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Right to appeal
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

, , ( - ), IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENC H, (E-COURT), MUMBAI . . , !' , #$% , $& '( BEFORE SHRI H L KARWA, PRESIDENT, & SHRI RAJENDRA, AM ./ITA NOS.42, 43 & 44/NAG/2013 ( ) * / ASSESSMENT YEARS :2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD., C/O M/S. LOYA BAGRI & CO., CAS, GHANDHIBAG, NAGPUR-02 PAN : AAACB5340H VS. DCIT CENT. CIR. 2(3) NAGPUR ( +, /APPELLANT) ( -.+, / RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. R V LOYA RESPONDENT BY : MS. PRITI JAIN DAS DATE OF HEARING : 24.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEME NT : 24.01.2014 '$/ / O R D E R PER H L KARWA, PRESIDENT : THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-I, NAGPUR, ALL DATED 10.08.2012 RELATING TO A.YS. 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE FIRST COMMON GROUND RAISED IN ALL THESE APPE ALS READS AS UNDER: THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS BAD IN LAW AND WRONG ON FACTS AND THE LEARNED CIT(APPEA L) ERRED IN 2 ITA NO.42, 43 & 44/NAG/2013 AY:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 CONFIRMING THE SAME. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IS UNJUSTIFIED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE I.T ACT, 1961. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS AND THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OR THESE THREE YEARS WERE CHALLENGED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A)-I,NAGPUR. THE CIT(A) D ISMISSED ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS SEPARATE ORDERS, ALL DATED 08.10. 2012. THE CIT(A) PASSED EX-PARTE ORDERS OBSERVING AS UNDER: HOWEVER, EVEN AFTER GRANT OF ADJOURNMENT THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES. AS ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEE N GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT FOR HEARING, I PROCEED TO FINALIZE THE AP PEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS WORTH MENTIONI NG THAT IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION REGA RDING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE APPEAL NOR HAVE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCES RELATED TO THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE APPEAL BEEN FILED. HENCE , THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED RELATING TO EXPARTE. 4. BEFORE US, SHRI LOYA, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS WERE PASSED BY THE CIT(A) WITHOUT AFFORDING AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) NEVER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION S REGARDING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE APPEALS. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO NEVER ASKED TH E ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTIONS RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEALS. SHRI LOYA, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS MAY BE SET ASIDE IN TOTO AND THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE CIT(A) FOR AFRESH DEC ISION. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HA S NOT AFFORDED AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE D ECIDING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS WELL SETT LED LAW THAT A RIGHT OF APPEAL WHEREVER 3 ITA NO.42, 43 & 44/NAG/2013 AY:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 CONFERRED INCLUDES A RIGHT OF BEING AFFORDED AN OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LANGUAGE CONFERRING SUCH RIGHT. THAT IS A P ART AND PARCEL OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WHERE AN AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO ACT IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITY, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO GIVE THE APPELLANT AN ADEQUATE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. 6. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE PRESENT CASE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSID ERATION IN TOTO AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE ALL THE APPEALS AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE EXPEDITIOUSLY. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSA RY TO DISCUSS THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. THEREFORE NO FIN DINGS ARE BEING GIVEN ON REMAINING GROUNDS OF APPEALS. 8. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE E-COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (H L KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DT : 24 TH JANUARY, 2014 SA COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE C.I.T, CONCERNED 4. THE CIT (A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR, NAGPUR BENCH BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI