Sh. Ashok Kumar Singhal, Bulandshahr V. ACIT, Bulandshahr

ITA 4325/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7375 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FARHAT KHAN
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 244A; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-3 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-432 5/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-20 06-07) ASHOK KUMAR SINGHAL, 244A RAJE BABU ROAD, BULANDSHAHR. PAN-ADBPS9897H (APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CIRCLE, BULANDSHAHR. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. RAMIT KAKKAR, ADV RESPONDENT BY SH. FARHAT KHAN, SR.DR ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2014 OF CIT(A), MEERUT PERTAINING TO 2006-07 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING TH E PARTIES WERE HEARD ONLY IN RESPECT TO THE ISSUE ADDRESSED VIDE GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 WHICH RE AD AS UNDER:- 1. THAT NO OPPORTUNITY OF PROPER HEARING WAS PROVIDE D TO THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID GROUND NO.1 , EVEN IF THE LD.CIT(A) WISHED TO PROCEED FURTHER, HE SHOULD HAVE PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER ON EACH OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL PREFERRED BEFORE HIM. THIS NOT HAVING BEEN DONE, AND THE APPEAL HAVING BEEN DISMISSED IN-LIMIN E, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS VITIATED AND BE, THEREFORE, QUASHED. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AFTER AF FORDING VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO DISMISS THE APPEA L HOLDING AS UNDER:- 3. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT MORE THAN SUFFIC IENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. HO WEVER, THE APPELLANT EITHER HAS NOT MADE ANY COMPLIANCE OR HAS FILED ADJ OURNMENT APPLICATION. THIS IMPLIES THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED I N PURSUING THE APPEAL FOR DATE OF HEARING 21 .06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19 .0 8 .2016 I.T.A .NO.-4325/DEL/2014 PAGE 2 OF 3 THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM. THEREFORE, THE APPE AL IS DISPOSED OFF ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD. 4. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS A ND EVIDENCES. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IT IS HELD T HAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ORDER. 3. LD. AR RELYING ON STATEMENTS OF FACTS FILED BEFO RE THE ITAT SUBMITTED THAT THE CONCERNED CIT(A) WAS HOLDING SUBSTANTIVE CHARGE AS CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR AND ADDITIONAL CHARGE AS CIT(A), GHAZIABAD AND MEERUT. THUS, HE W AS NOT REGULARLY STAYING AT MEERUT AND FREQUENTLY TRAVELLING. THE HEARINGS WERE ROUTI NELY CARRIED OUT IN A CURSORY MANNER AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE IN A LOT OF CASES AS AND WHEN H E VISITED MEERUT. ACCORDINGLY A PRAYER WAS MADE THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR A DECISION ON MERIT AS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER DATED 18.08. 2011 PASSED BY THE AO HAS BEEN ASSAILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH H AVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. 4. LD.SR.DR, MR. F.KHAN AFTER GOING THROUGH THE STA TEMENT OF FACTS AND CONSIDERING THE IMPUGNED ORDER STATED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERIT. 5. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN L AW AS THE SAME IS IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT AS SET OUT IN SUB-SECTION 6 OF SECTION 250 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY-REFERENCE:- PROCEDURE IN APPEAL 250. (1) . (2) (3) (4) . (5) . (6) THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DISPOS ING OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL STATE THE POINTS FOR DETER MINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASON FOR THE DECISION. (6A)............................................... .................... I.T.A .NO.-4325/DEL/2014 PAGE 3 OF 3 5.1. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISION SHOWS THAT TH E CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL IS STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO SET OUT IN WRITING THE POIN TS FOR DETERMINATION AND THE DECISION THEREON SUPPORTED BY REASONS FOR THE CONCLUSION. T HE SAID EXERCISE IS FOUND TO BE MISSING. ACCORDINGLY TO MAKE UP THE STATUTORY DE FICIT AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE ISSUE IS SET ASIDE BACK TO THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN TERMS OF THE STATUTORY MANDATE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE CIT( A) BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH AUGUST 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDIC IAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT NEW DELHI