Sh. Umesh Garg, Uttar Pradesh V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 4375/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 437520114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 29 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: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN RAWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4375 /DEL/201 4 A.Y. : 200 8 - 0 9 UMESH GARG , VS. ITO, WARD - 2( 4 ), C/O M/S MALIK & CO., (ADVOCATES) NEW DELHI 305/7, THAPAR NAGAR, MEERUT CITY, MEERUT (UP) (PAN : AFGP0404B ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SANJAY MALIK, 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 28 .3.201 4 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 . 2. T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: - I) THAT ON THE LAST TWO DATE OF HEARING ON 18.3.2014 AND 28.3.2014, ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT BECAUSE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF THE COUNSEL DUE TO DEATH OF HIS FATHER. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT R E - PRESENTING THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THUS THERE WAS NO WARRANT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL WITHOUT AFFORDING 2 OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION FOR EFFECTIVE ADJUDICATION OF THE GROUNDS ON MERITS. II) THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND SUS TAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT PROPER AND EFFECTIVE ADJUDICATION WERE ILLEGAL, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND UNTENABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. III) THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE ISSUES / GROUNDS OF APPEAL DESERVE TO BE RESTORED FOR ADJUDICATION BY THE LD. CIT(A ) AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. (IV) THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND MAY PLEASE BE PERMITTED TO BE TAKEN BEFORE THE HON BLE BENCH. 3. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPE ATED 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 FIELD. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY 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. THESE ARE A SET OF TWO APPEALS, DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 26.12.2011 PASSED BY ITO, 3 WARD 2(4), MEERUT. IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICES U/S. 250 OF THE ACT, NONE APPEARED. 2. FOLLOWING DATES OF HEARING WERE ALLOWED TO THE APPE LLANT: - DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING / ADJOURNED DATE REMARKS 24.12.2013 81.2014 ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED 08.1.2014 27.1.2014 NO COMPLIANCE 10.2.2014 24.2.2014 NONE ATTENDED 27.2.2014 18.3.2014 ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED 18.3.2014 28.3.2014 APPELLANT ONCE AGAIN FILED. 3. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT MORE THAN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. ON THE SEVERAL DATES FIXED FOR HEARING, THE APPELLANT FILED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED. ON THESE DATES, EITH ER NONE ATTENDED OR ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. THIS IMPLIES THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT 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 4 ADJ OURNMENT CAN BE GRANTED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD. 4. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS AND EVIDENCES AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITIONS. THE SAME ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED. GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. SD/ - (S.M.J. ABIDI) COMMISSIONER OF INC OME 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 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 ISSU E ON MERITS. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT EVEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE 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 DECI DE THE SAME AFRESH, AS PER LAW. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE 5 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