Hamilton Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4672/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4161 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 4672 & 4673/DEL/2015 A.YRS.: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S HAMILTON TECHNOLOGIES VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -17. (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ARA CENTRE, 5/51, SECOND FLOOR, JHANDEWALAN, WEA, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 005 (PAN: AABCH2066H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SH. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 12.5.2015 OF LD. CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 2008-09. SINC E THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL, HENCE, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 THE FOLLOWING ARE THE COMMON GROUNDS RAISED IN BO TH THE APPEALS:- I) THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO IS BAD BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2 II) THAT THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING PENALTY AGAINST THE COMPANY U/S. 271(1)(C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS DESPITE THE FACT THAT ALL THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOTHING WAS CONCEALED THEREFROM. III) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, ADD, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL. 3. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE W AS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST, WHICH WAS RETURNED BACK WITH THE POSTAL REMARKS REFUSED. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESEN T APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVE D TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE ARE DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 5. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORDS ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID RECO RDS, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER AGAINST THE PRI NCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY WAY OF EXPARTE ORDER IN NOT PROVID ING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE, THE 3 ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS NEEDS TO BE SET ASID E TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH PASS A SPEA KING ORDER THEREON, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) AND PRODUCE ALL THE DOCUMENTS BEF ORE HIM TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM AND NOT TO TAKE ANY UNNECESSA RY ADJOURNMENT. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/10/2017. SD/- SD/- [L.P. SAHU] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 04/10/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR