NECTAR Lifesciences Ltd., V. Add. CIT, Range-9,

ITA 4513/DEL/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4281 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ITA NO. 4513/DEL/04 ASSTT. YR: 2001-02 NECTAR LIFESCIENCES LTD., VS. ADDL. CIT RANGE 9( 1), FORMERLY KNOWN AS NEW DELHI. SURYA MEDICARE LTD., 1596, IST FLOOR, BHAGIRATH PLACE, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI. PAN/ GIR NO.AABCS6468G ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRATAP GUPTA CA ASSESSEE BY : MS. Y. KAKKAR SR. DR O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M: : THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST CIT(A)S EXPARTE ORDER DATED 30-7- 2004 RELATING TO A.Y. 2001-02. GROUND NO. 1 RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DECIDING THE APPEAL WI THOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE A ND REJECTING OUR REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FROM THE DA TE OF HEARING ON 21.7.2004. IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 2 TO 10 VARIOUS DISALLOWA NCES/ ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED. 2. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT A LL THE MATERIAL DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS ADDI TIONS, HOWEVER, THE ADDITIONS IN QUESTION WERE MADE. THE FIRST APPEAL W AS FILED BEFORE THE ITA 4513/DEL/04 NECTAR LIFESCIENCES LTD. 2 CIT(A). AS SHRI PRATAP GUPTA CA, WHO WAS LOOKING AF TER THE APPEAL, WAS OUT OF STATION FOR A CONSIDERABLE TIME, AS SUCH THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE TAKEN UP ON DATES FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A). H E SUBMITTED THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A) I.E. 21-7-20 04 ALSO THE CA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF TOWN BUT THE CIT(A) REFUSED TO GRANT ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING AND CLOSED THE CASE EX PARTE AND THUS THE IMPUGNED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 30-7-2004. HE SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE ASSESSEE ADJOURNMENT INASMUCH AS I N THE ABSENCE OF CA IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR IT TO DEFEND THE APPEAL. IT IS FURTHER PLEADED THAT VARIOUS ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE COVERED BY THE ORD ER OF ITAT DELHI BENCH F DATED 13-8-2009 RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 IN ITA NOS. 232 & 450/DEL/09. IT IS PLEADED THAT THE I MPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE, RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT( A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 3. LEARNED DR HAS NO OBJECTION FOR SETTING ASIDE TH E MATTER TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE OUT A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-ATTENDANCE BEFORE CIT(A). IF THE ASSE SSEES CA IS ABSENT, THEN IT WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEF ORE THE CIT(A). IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR MANY OF THE SIMILAR ADDITIONS HAD B EEN DECIDED BY ITAT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, INTEREST OF JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED IF THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN A CHANCE OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON MERITS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN TO COMPLY WITH CIT(A)S NOT ICE. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND R ESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO ITA 4513/DEL/04 NECTAR LIFESCIENCES LTD. 3 HIS FILE TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING TH E ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE ORDER ACCORD INGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 08-04-2011. SD/- SD/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 08-04-2011. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR