Globe Ground India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4700/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3495 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KUMAR CHAND SR DR TP
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. NO.4700/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 GLOBE GROUND INDIA PVT. LTD., DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, E-9, CONNAUGHT HOUSE, VS. CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI. CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAACG8313K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI TARANDEEP SINGH, CA. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHAND, SR. DR (TP) O R D E R PER C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT OR DER DATED 30.08.2010 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SE CTION 143(3) READ WITH SEC. 144C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A GROUND, AMONGST OTHERS, THAT THE LEARNED DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AND IN THE PROCESS NOT PROVIDING A PROPER AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. 4. IN THIS CASE, THE AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMEN T UNDER SEC. 143(3) READ WITH SEC. 144C OF THE ACT ON 30.08.2010 AFTER TAKING NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM THE DRP. A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WA S PASSED BY THE AO ON 24.12.2009, WHICH WAS DULY FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSE E VIDE LETTER DATED 24.12.2009 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 144C OF TH E ACT. THE ASSESSEE THEN, FILED OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LEARNED DRP ON 28.01.2010. THEREAFTER, THE DRP CONFIRMED THE DRAF T ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 16.07.2010. THE LEARNE D DRPS ORDER DATED 16.07.2010 WAS RECEIVED BY THE AO ON 12.08.2010 AND THEREAFTER THE AO PASSED THE FINAL ORDER U/S 143(3)/144C OF THE ACT O N 30.08.2010. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER UNDER SEC. 144C OF THE ACT DATED 16.07.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED DRP. IN THIS ORDER, THE DRP HAS STATED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED OBJECTIONS ON 28.01.2010 AND THE CASE WAS FIXED BY THE DRP FOR HEARING ON 16.06.2010. THE LEARNED DRP FURTHER STATED THAT NO BODY ATTENDED BEFORE THE DRP FOR REPRESENTATION OF THE CASE. THE DRP THEREF ORE, CONSIDERED THE TPOS ORDER, DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN REPRESENTATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER P ASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS, THUS, CLEAR THAT THE DRP FIXED THE CASE FOR HEARING ONLY ONCE I.E. ON 16.07.2010. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE 3 SHRI TARANDEEP SINGH, CA HAS SUBMITTED THAT AN ADJO URNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DRP ON 16.06.2010 WITH A REQUEST FOR A SHORT ADJOURNMENT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD CHANGED ITS C OUNSEL, WHO, DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME, WAS NOT ABLE TO APPEAR BEFORE DRP ON 16.06.2010. THIS ADJOURNMENT REQUEST HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED DRP. SINCE THE 16.06.2010 WAS THE FIRST DATE OF HEARING, AND NO RE PEATED ADJOURNMENTS WERE SOUGHT FOR BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THIS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT DRP SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST GRANTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE ITS SAY BEFORE IT INSTEAD OF PASSING THE EX PA RTE ORDER. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE AOS FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE UNDER SE C. 143(3)/144C AND THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED DRP DATED 16.07.2010 AND REMAN D THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL FOR PASSIN G A FRESH ORDER OF DIRECTION U/S 144C OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE DRAFT ASSESSM ENT ORDER MADE BY THE AO. THE LEARNED DRP SHALL PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DO HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO COOP ERATE WITH THE LEARNED DRP IN DECIDING THE MATTER AT THE EARLIEST WITHOUT SEEKING ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENTS OR BY INDULGING INTO ANY DILATORY TACT ICS. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. SINCE THE LEARNED DRPS ORDER AND THE AOS ORDER HAVE BEEN REMITTED BACK FOR PASSING THE FRESH ORDERS, VARIOUS OTHER GR OUNDS RAISED BY THE 4 ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER HAVE BECOME REDUNDANT AND NEED NO ADJUDICATION AT THIS STAGE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS T REATED TO BE ALLOWED FOR A STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 7. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JULY, 2011 IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING WAS OVER. SD/- SD/- (K.G. BANSAL) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20 TH JULY, 2011. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.