Sh. Devendra Kumar, Meerut V. ITO, Baraut

ITA 4442/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 444220114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 27 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: 12-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN RAWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V K GOEL
• 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. 4 44 2 /DEL/201 4 A.Y. : 200 9 - 10 DEVENDRA KUMAR VS. ITO, C/O M/S VINOD KUMAR GOEL, BARAUT 282, BOUNDARY ROAD, CIVIL LINES, MEERUT (PAN : A VDPK4886A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. V.K. GOEL, 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 ON 13.2.2013 AND 17.1.2014 NO CIT(A) WAS PRESENT TO HEARD THE APPEAL AS HE WAS TRANSFERRED AS CIT, ADMINISTRATION, MEERUT AND ON 17.2.2014 AND 14.3.2014 THE ASSESSEE SEEK ADJOURNMENT BUT CIT(A) WAS NOT PRESENT. HENCE, ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) MEERUT ON 14 .3.2014 AS EXPARTE ORDER IS AGAINST THE 2 FACTS AND LAW AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. (II) THAT ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) AND AO IS NOT DECIDED ON MERITS HENCE, CONFIRMATION OF CIT(A) EXPARTE IS BAD IN LAW. (III) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHT T O ADD, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY GROUNDS DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDING. 3. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PAR TIES 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. TH E PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 28 .12.2011 PASSED BY ITO, BARUAT. IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICES U/S. 250 OF THE ACT, NONE APPEARED. 2. FOLLOWING DATES OF HEARING WERE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT: - 3 DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING / ADJOURNED DATE REMARKS 14 .1 1 .2013 3.12.2013 NO COMPLIANCE 24.12.2013 17.1.2014 NO COMPLIANCE 7.2.2014 17 .2.2014 ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED ON 15.2.2014. 27.2.2014 14.3.2014 ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED BUT NO FURTHER ADJOURNED CAN BE GRANTED. 3. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT MORE THAN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, ON ALL THE DATES FIXED FOR HEARING, THE APPELLANT EITHER HAS NOT MADE ANY COMPLIANCE OR FILED ADJOURNMENT. 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 ADJOURNMENT CAN BE GRANTED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF ON THE BAS IS 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 4 ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKIN G ADDITIONS. 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 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 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. 5 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 6