Sh. Kamal Kumar Jaiswal, Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 4543/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91286 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 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: 19-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN RAWAL
• 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. 4543 /DEL/201 4 A.Y. : 200 9 - 10 KAMAL KUMAR JAISWAL, VS. ITO, WARD 1(3), 251 - A, CHANKYA PURI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MEERUT MEERUT (PAN : AOCPK4765N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE 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 18 .3.201 4 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 . 2. T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: - ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, IT DESERVE TO BE HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN MAKING COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE DATE FIXED. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS HOLDING CHARGED OF APPELLATE OFFICE MUZAFFARNAGAR AND THE CHARGED, APPELLATE OFFICE 2 AT MEERUT WAS ADDITIONAL WORK WITH HIM. THE APPELLATE WORK AT MEERUT OFFICE COULD NOT BE PROPERLY LOOK AFTER AND DISCHARGED. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 18.3.2014 IS WRONG, ILLEGAL, UNWARRANTED ON FACTS AND LAW. THE OWN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IT DESERVE TO BE HELD THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. 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 CONV ENIENCE. 4. IN THIS CASE THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BY REGD. AD POST FOR TODAY I.E. 09 .07.2015 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 VIDE COLUMN NO. 10, BUT NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN ON THE SAME ADDRESS. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CASE MAY BE DECIDED EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 5 . I HAVE H EARD THE LD. DR 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 OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM B EFORE HIM. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 3 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 7 .12.2011 PASSED BY ITO, WARD 1(3), 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 24 .12.2013 7 . 1.201 4 NO COMPLIANCE 10.2.2014 24.2.2014 ADJOURNED APPLICATION WAS FILED. 24.2.2014 18.3.2014 NONE ATTENDED 3. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT MORE THAN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. ON THE SECOND DATE FIXED FOR HEARING, THE APPELLANT FILED AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 18.3.2014. ON THI S DATE, NONE ATTENDED. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE ANY COMPLIANCE . 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 APPELLA NT, NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT CAN BE GRANTED. THEREFORE, THE 4 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 ADDITION. THE SAME IS 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 ISSUE 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 IS SUES 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 5 TH E 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