Elegance Embroidery Collection Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4808/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8108 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: P RAY CHAUDHARY
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA I.T.A. NO. 4808/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M/S. ELEGANCE EMBROIDERY COLLECTION LTD., VS. INC OME-TAX OFFICER, F 3/5, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-I, WARD 11(1) , NEW DELHI-1100 20 NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI P. RAY CHAUDHARY, AD V. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI MANISH GUPT A, DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 12.10.2009 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL IS THAT LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO GRANT PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE DISMISSING ITS APPEAL. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE WHILE IMPUGNING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) SUB MITTED THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 23.2.2009, THE REPRESENTAT IVE OF THE ASSESSEE REACHED THE OFFICE OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) A BIT LA TE. HE PRAYED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT BUT LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY H AS INFORMED THE 2 ASSESSEE THAT HEARING HAS ALREADY BEEN CONCLUDED. H E FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS PASSED THE ORDER ON 12.12. 2009. THERE IS A GAP OF 8 MONTHS BETWEEN THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING VIS--VI S THE ULTIMATE PASSING OF THE ORDER. IN SUCH SITUATION, THERE WAS NO URGENT R EQUIREMENT OF DISPOSAL OF THIS APPEAL AND THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY COULD HAVE GRANTED ONE MORE ADJOURNMENT TO THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PLACE ANY MATERIA L IN SUPPORT OF ITS ABOVE CONTENTION. 2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GON E THROUGH THE RECORDS CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT LEARNED CIT(APPEALS ) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY CONCURRING WITH THE FINDING OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THERE IS NO ELABORATE DISCUSSION AT THE END OF THE LEARNED CIT( APPEALS). HE REPRODUCED THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEN CONCURRED WITH SUCH FINDING. ACCORDING TO THE FACTS MENTIONED IN PARAGR APH 2 OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)S ORDER, HEARING WAS CONCLUDED EX PART E ON 23.2.2009 WHEREAS ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 12 OCTOBER 2009. SUB-SECTI ON (6) OF SEC. 250 OF THE ACT MANDATES THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) TO STATE THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION AND THE DECISION THEREON WITH THE REASONS. IN THE I MPUGNED ORDER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SPECIFIC STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE REASON S ASSIGNED BY THE LEARNED 3 FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHILE CONCURRING WITH THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE L EARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND RESTORE ALL THESE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR READJUDICATION. IT IS NEEDL ESS TO SAY THAT THE DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND WILL NOT ASK UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ARE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.02.2010 ( R.C. SHARMA ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: /02/2010 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR