M/s. Bugli Devi Educational and Social Welfare Trust, Meerut V. Addl.CIT, Meerut

ITA 4324/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 432420114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 09-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN RAWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V RAJA KR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 43 24 /DEL/201 4 A.Y. : 200 9 - 10 BUGLI DEVI EDUCATIONAL & SOCIAL VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 1, WELFARE TRUST, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, A - 217, DEFENCE COLONY, MEERUT MEERUT (UP) (PAN : AABTB4116F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. V. RAJA KR. ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. ROBIN RAWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 09 - 7 - 2015 DATE OF ORDER : 0 9 - 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) , MEERUT DATED 14 .3.201 4 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 . 2. T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: - I) THAT NO OPPORTUNITY OF PROPER HEARING WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. (II) THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID GROUND NO.1, EVEN IF THE LD. CIT(A) WISHED TO PRO CEED FURTHER, HE SHOULD HAVE PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER ON EACH OF THE 2 GROUNDS OF APPEAL PREFERRED BEFORE HIM. THIS NOT HAVING BEEN DONE, AND THE APPEAL HAVING BEEN DISMISSED IN LIMINE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS VITIATED AND BE, THEREFORE, QUASHED. (III) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. OBSERVATIONS MADE, INFERENCES DRAWN AND FINDINGS RECORDED IN THIS REGARD ARE UNCALLED FOR AND ILLEGAL. THE LD. CIT( A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER. (IV) THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE BAD IN LAW. 3. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEA TED 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 FIL E D. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE HIM. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - APPELLATE ORDER AND GROUNDS OF DECISION U/S. 250 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 2 9 .12.2011 PASSED BY ADDL. CIT, 3 RANGE - I, MEERUT. IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICES U/S. 250 OF THE ACT, NONE APPEARED. 2. FOLLOWING DATES OF HEARING WERE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT: - DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING / ADJOURNED DATE REMARKS 31 .12.2013 24 . .12.2013 ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED ON 23.12.2013 AND THE CASE ADJOURNED FOR 9.1.2014. 9.1.2014 NO COMPLIANCE 10.2.2014 24.2.2014 ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 24.2.2014. 24.2.2014 ONCE AGAIN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 14.3.2014. 14.3.2014 ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS 4 FILED. 3. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT MORE THAN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT EITHER HAS NOT MADE ANY COMPLIANCE OR HAS FILED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION . THIS IMPLIES THAT THE APPELLANT IS NO T INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM. SINCE, SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEING HEARD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT, NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT CAN BE GRANTED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL EVID ENCE ON THE RECORD. 4. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS AND EVIDENCES AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF CARRY FORWARD LOSS BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISAL LOWING CARRY FORWARD LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE EXCESS EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,39,392/ - . THE SAME ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED. GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. SD/ - (S.M.J. ABIDI) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MEERUT 5. AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), I FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER. HE SUMMARILY 5 DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN THIS REGARD. LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE ON MERITS. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT EVEN THE ADMINISTRA TIVE ORDERS HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HENCE, 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, LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH AND PASS A PROPER AND SPEAKING ORDER CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 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 09 /7/201 5 . SD/ - [ H.S. SIDHU ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 09 /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