M/S VERMA METAL INDUSTRIES, KATHUA V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

ITA 481/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0936 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2018
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM DEB
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Section: 271(1)(c); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I. T. A. NOS. 481 & 482/(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 VERMA METAL INDUSTRIES, 5623-3 RD FLOOR SADAR BAZAR, DELHI INDUSTRIES EXT. AREA OPP. DIC OFFICE KATHUA [PAN: AAGFV 3403N] VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. P. N. ARORA (ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. GAUTAM DEB (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 29.08.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.11.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS A SET OF TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JAMMU (C IT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 31.3.2017, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEALS CONTES TING ITS ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAFTER) DATED 16.03.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13. THE SECOND APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF THE CONFIRMATION OF THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE LD. CIT(A) QUA THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A O) DATED 21/9/2015, VIDE HIS ORDER DATED, AGAIN, 31/3/2017. 2. THE ONLY PRAYER BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, SHRI P.N. ARORA, BEFORE US, DESPITE THE ASSESSEES APPEALS RAISING SEVERAL GROU NDS, WAS THAT THE IMPUGNED ITA NOS. 481&482/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) VERMA METAL INDUSTRIES V. DY. CIT 2 ORDERS CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS THE PEN ALTY BEING EX PARTE ORDERS, THE MATTERS BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS, I.E., SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. EVEN AS THE SAME MENTION SEVERAL DATES WHICH WE OBSERVE TO BE OVER A PERIO D OF TEN MONTHS, I.E., BEGINNING (EARLY) JUNE, 2016 TO MARCH, 2017, FOR WHICH THE HE ARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ADJOURNED FROM TIME TO TIME, HE WOULD CONTINUE, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT NONE OF THEM WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHIC H PERHAPS COULD BE FOR THE REASON THAT THE NOTICES OF HEARING HAD BEEN SENT TO THE KATHUA ADDRESS (WHEREAT THE ASSESSEES WORKS WERE LOCATED), WHICH HAD BEEN CLOS ED, WHILE THE SAME WERE REQUIRED TO BE AT THE ASSESSEES DELHI ADDRESS (HOU SING ITS HEAD OFFICE). THERE HAS CLEARLY BEEN A DENIAL OF PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO STATE ITS CASE BEFORE HIM BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE WAS, ACCORDINGLY, REQUIRED TO AVER SO PER A SWORN AFFIDAVIT. AT THE SAME TIME, NOTING THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CLEARLY STATED (AT PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN BOTH THE APPEALS), THAT THE NOTICES OF HEARING WERE ISSUED (FROM TIME TO TIME) ON THE ADDR ESS AS GIVEN IN FORM 35, I.E., THE FORM OF APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE REC ORD OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 13/8/2018 (TH ROUGH ITS PARTNER, SHRI SACHIN KUMAR, THE PERSON WHO HAD SIGNED FORM 36, THE FORM OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR BOTH THE APPEALS), TO THE EFFECT THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS (BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)) WERE NOT SERVED AT THE DELHI (HO) ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN FORM 35. A PERUSA L OF THE APPEAL FILES, PRODUCED DURING HEARING, REVEALED THAT THE NOTICES OF HEARIN G WERE INDEED ADDRESSED TO THE KATHUA ADDRESS. HOWEVER, THERE WAS A LETTER DATED 1 7/1/2017 BY THE ASSESSEE, SEEKING ADJOURNMENT, IN BOTH THE APPEAL FILES , WHICH WAS READ OUT BY THE LD. DR. THE SAME CLEARLY IMPLIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECE IVED THE NOTICE/S OF HEARING, AND IN BOTH THE APPEALS, WHICH WERE IN FACT CONCURRENTL Y UNDER HEARING BEFORE THE LD. ITA NOS. 481&482/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) VERMA METAL INDUSTRIES V. DY. CIT 3 CIT(A), REBUTTING THE ASSESSEES STATEMENT BEFORE U S AS WELL AS ITS AFFIDAVIT DATED 13/8/2018 WHICH, AS ITS CLOSE READING REVEALS, IS RESTRICTED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY TO THE QUANTUM APPEAL. SH. ARORA WOULD, UPON THIS, STA TE THAT THE SAME, HOWEVER, DOES NOT MATERIALLY ALTER THE ASSESSEES CASE IN-AS-MUCH AS IT MAY BE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ONE OR TWO OF THE (SEVERAL) NOTICES OF HEARING, BUT THAT DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO PROVISION OF ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE WHOM THE ASSESSEE IS IN ANY CASE UNREPRESENTED, SO THAT AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE HIM IS WARRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. THE FIRST ISSUE BEFORE US IS IF THE LD. CIT(A), WH O HAS LISTED 13 AND 12 INSTANCES IN THE APPEALS IN THE QUANTUM AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS RESPECTIVELY (TOGETHER WITH THE RESPONSE OF THE ASSESSEE ON EACH OCCASION FOR WHICH THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED) OF PROVISION OF OPPORTUNITY FOR REPRES ENTATION TO THE ASSESSEE- APPELLANT, HAD EXTENDED REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS AS, WITHOUT DOUBT, WHERE NOT SO, THE MATTER HAS TO GO BACK TO HIS FILE FOR THE PURPOSE, I.E., AN ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANT OF THE S AID OPPORTUNITY. AN AUTHORITY, IT MAY BE APPRECIATED, CAN ONLY EXTEND OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, OR ANY PARTIES BEFORE IT FOR THAT MATTER, AND IT IS ON IT (THEM) TO AVAIL THE SAME, WHO CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO DO SO. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN CIT V. SAS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY [2009] 319 ITR 65 (P&H), ADVERTING TO THE POWERS O F THE TRIBUNAL AS LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN ESTHUNI ASWATHIAH V. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 478 (SC), HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE TRIBUNAL (OR A NY OTHER APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THAT MATTER) CANNOT SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, R ESTORING THE MATTER BACK FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, UNLESS IT RECORDS A FINDING THA T THERE HAS BEEN A DENIAL OF PROPER OPPORTUNITY (OF REPRESENTATION) BY THE AUTHORITY WH OSE ORDER IS UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE IT. ITA NOS. 481&482/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) VERMA METAL INDUSTRIES V. DY. CIT 4 IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS APPAR ENTLY SENT THE NOTICES (OF HEARING) TO THE KATHUA ADDRESS, WHICH IS THE SPECIF IED ADDRESS FOR COMMUNICATION IN ONE OF THE FORM 35, I.E., IN THE PENALTY PROCEED INGS, WHILE THE OTHER FORM 35 SPECIFIES THE DELHI ADDRESS. THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(A), THUS, COULD NOT BE FAULTED FOR SENDING THE NOTICE, WHERE SO, TO THE KATHUA ADD RESS, AT LEAST IN-SO-FAR AS THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE PENALTY APPEAL ARE CON CERNED. IN FACT, THAT FURTHER ONLY IMPLIES THAT THE KATHUA ADDRESS WAS A VALID ADDRESS , AT LEAST FOR COMMUNICATION, AT THE RELEVANT TIME, SO THAT EITHER THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMPLETELY SHUT ITS WORKS THEREAT OR WAS OTHERWISE MAINTAINING THE SAID ADDRE SS, WITH ARRANGEMENTS FOR RECEIVING COMMUNICATIONS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE BEI NG THE SAME, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE NOTICES OF HEARING BEING A COMMUNICATION THE RETO, WITH THE VIEW TO EXTEND OPPORTUNITY, THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICES IN ONE CAS E WOULD IMPLY THE RECEIPT OF NOTICES IN THE OTHER (QUANTUM) PROCEEDINGS AS WELL. THIS IS PARTICULARLY SO AS THE ASSESSEE HAS, IN BOTH THE PROCEEDINGS, SOUGHT ADJOU RNMENT VIDE LETTERS DATED 17/01/2017 SUPRA, PLACED IN THE APPEAL FILES, CALLE D FOR BY THE BENCH. THE SAME IMPLIES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS, FOR BOTH THE PROCEED INGS, AWARE OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEING SEIZED OF THE MATTER AND EXTENDING OPPORTUNIT Y, WHICH WAS, GRANTING THE REQUEST PER THE SAID APPLICATION, ADJOURNED FROM 18 .01.2017 (I.E., THE NEXT DATE IN BOTH THE PROCEEDINGS). THE IMPUGNED ORDER (IN ONE A PPEAL) ALSO RECORDS THE ATTENDANCE OF ONE, SH. LALIT SETH THE PERSON SIGN ING FORM 35 IN BOTH THE APPEALS, ON 19.12.2016, SO THAT, WITHOUT DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEING ON BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AT THE R ELEVANT TIME. AT THE SAME TIME, THE NOTICES PRIOR TO 03.01.2017 (FIXING THE NEXT HE ARING FOR 18.01.2017, FOR WHICH DATE ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT), WERE SENT TO A COMBIN ED ADDRESS, CONTAINING BOTH THE SADAR BAZAR (DELHI) ADDRESS AS WELL THE INDUSTR IAL AREA (KATHUA) ADDRESS, I.E., AS MENTIONED IN THE TITLE OF FORM 35 IN BOTH THE CA SES , SO THAT THE SAME, CLEARLY, IS NOT A PROPER ADDRESS. THE THREE NOTICES POST 20.01. 2017, I.E., TO WHICH DATE THE ITA NOS. 481&482/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) VERMA METAL INDUSTRIES V. DY. CIT 5 PROCEEDINGS WERE ADJOURNED FROM 18.01.2017, WERE, A GAIN, IN BOTH THE APPEALS, AT THE KATHUA ADDRESS. THIS IS SURPRISING AS THE CHANG E IN THE ADDRESS IN THE SUBSEQUENT NOTICES OF HEARING WOULD, PRESUMABLY, ON LY BE UPON IT BEING BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE NOTICES WERE NOT BEING RECEIVED AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED OR OF THE SAME BEING NOT CORRECT. THOUGH NONE APPEARED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ON EACH OF THESE THREE DATES, WE ARE INCLIN ED TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT. THIS IS AS THE ADDRESS FOR COMMUN ICATION AS SPECIFIED IN FORM 35 (IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS) IS CLEARLY STATED TO BE TH E DELHI ADDRESS, WITH THERE BEING NO INDICATION OF THE SAME HAVING BEEN CHANGED SUBSE QUENTLY. FURTHER, IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS ACCOMPANYING FORM 35 IN THE PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS, IT STATED THAT THE FACTORY STANDS CLOSED AND THE PARTNERS HAD LEFT KATHUA. AS SUCH, DESPITE THE FACT OF THE ASSESSEE BEING ADMITTEDLY AWARE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEING ON BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN BOTH THE APPEALS, WE CONSIDER IT TO B E A CASE OF NON-GRANT OF PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SAME THOUGH CANNOT BE SAID TO LIE ENTIRELY AT THE DOOR O F HIS OFFICE; THE FORM 35 IN ONE OF THE CASES (PENALTY PROCEEDINGS) CLEARLY MENTIONING THE KATHUA ADDRESS (FOR COMMUNICATION), TO WHICH QUITE A FEW NOTICES WERE S ENT, WITH, IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE BEING CLEARLY AWARE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEING ON IN BOTH THE CASES AT LEAST AS FAR BACK AS IN DECEMBER, 2016. 4. IN THE VIEW OF THE FORE-GOING, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ORDERS IN BOTH THE APPEALS WARRANT BEING SET ASIDE, AND THE APPEALS RE STORED TO THE FILE OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR AN ADJUDICATION ON MERITS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, PER A SPEAKING ORDER, AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE SIDES BEFORE HIM. BEFORE PARTING WITH THIS ORDER, WE MAY, HOWEVER, MAKE A MENTION OF A PLEA ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL, SH. ARORA, QUA THE PENALTY APPEAL. RELYING ON THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL IN HPCL MITTAL ENERGY LTD. V. ADDL. CIT (IN ITA NOS. 510, ITA NOS. 481&482/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) VERMA METAL INDUSTRIES V. DY. CIT 6 554 TO 556/ASR/2014, DATED 20.06.2018/ COPY ON RECO RD), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN TH E FACTS OF THAT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EXPRESSED SATISFACTION WITH THE REGARD TO THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME, BUT HAD LEVIED PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT/F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL, EXPRESSING THE MAJORITY VI EW; THE MATTER HAVING TRAVELED TO A THIRD MEMBER (WHO HAD PASSED HIS ORDER U/S. 25 5(4) ON 07.05.2018), HELD THAT A PENALTY ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IN SU CH A MANNER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAS IN FACT LEVIED THE PENALTY ON BOTH THE COUNTS. WE ARE, HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE SET ASIDE AFORE-SAI D, EVEN AS OBSERVED DURING HEARING, DISINCLINED TO DWELL IN THE MATTER. THE AS SESSSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO RAISE ALL ISSUES, FACTUAL OR LEGAL, BEFORE THE PROCEEDINGS BE FORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4.1 THIS PARA IS BEING ADDED IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSS ION BETWEEN THE MEMBERS PRIOR TO FINALIZING THE ORDER, WITH A VIEW TO CLARI FY THE BASIS OF THE SAID DECISION. AS APPARENT FROM THE FOREGOING, BOTH THE APPEALS, I.E. , ON QUANTUM AND PENALTY, ARE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THE BENCH INDICATING SO DURING HEARING, NO ARGUMENTS WERE ACC ORDINGLY MADE OR HEARD WITH REFERENCE TO THE DECISION IN HPCL MITTAL ENERGY LTD. (SUPRA), REFERENCE TO WHICH IN THE ORDER IS ONLY BY WAY OF ABUNDANT CAUTION. THE O RDER IN FACT CLARIFIES SO, ALSO MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE SET ASIDE IS WITHOUT PREJU DICE TO THE ASSESSEES RIGHT TO RECOURSE TO ALL LEGAL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO IT. THE NATURE OF THE DISALLOWANCE/ ADDITION THE PENALTY BEING LEVIED QUA THREE DIFFERENT SUMS; THE EXPLANATION/S, IF ANY, OFFERED, ETC. ARE VITAL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER, HAVING A BEARING ALSO ON THE NATURE OF THE DEFAULT FOR WHICH PENALTY STANDS LEVIED WHIC H, AS AFORE-NOTED, IS FOR THREE SEPARATE DEFAULTS. THE IMPORT OF EXPLANATION 1 TO S. 271(1)(C), DEEMING A CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHEN THE ASSES SEE IS UNABLE TO FURNISH AN EXPLANATION OR FURNISHES ONE WHICH IS FOUND TO BE F ALSE OR IS UNSUBSTANTIATED, WHICH ITA NOS. 481&482/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) VERMA METAL INDUSTRIES V. DY. CIT 7 IS APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATERIAL TO T HE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, I.E., IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE DEFAULT PRIMA FACIE IS FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME, MAY ALSO HAVE A BEARING IN THE MATTER. IT IS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTAN CES THAT IT IS, AS INDICATED BY THE BENCH DURING HEARING, CONSIDERED PROPER THAT THE MA TTER BE DECIDED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHILE CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL, WHICH ALSO REMAINS TO BE DECIDED BY HIM ON QUANTUM. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTAN CES, IT MAY NOT BE PROPER FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON PEN ALTY ON MERITS, AND EXPLAINS THE DISINCLINATION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE PENALT Y ON MERITS. 5. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON NOVEMBER 26, 2018 SD/- (SANJAY AROR A) ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R PER N K CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORD ER EX- PARTE AND NOT ON MERIT. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE NOTICES F OR THE HEARING HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE KATHUA ADDRESS WHERE THE ASSESSEE WA S DOING WORK, HAD ALREADY BEEN CLOSED, HOWEVER, THE NOTICES WERE NEV ER BEEN SERVED AT DELHI ADDRESS WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.35. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION. THE BENCH EVEN VERIFIED THE APPELLATE RECORD OF THE LD. C IT(A) AND FOUND THAT THE NOTICES WERE NEVER BEEN SENT/SERVED AT DELHI ADDRESS WHIC H IS MENTIONED IN FORM NO.35. ITA NOS. 481&482/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) VERMA METAL INDUSTRIES V. DY. CIT 8 DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT OF APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PENALTY CASE IS COVERED BY THE DECI SION OF (THIRD MEMBER CASE) IN THE CASE OF HPCL MITTAL ENERGY LTD. VS . ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-1, IN ITA NO.554 & 555(ASR)/2014 AND ITA NOS.510 & 556(A SR)/2014, ORDER DATED 07.05.2018 AND THE LD. CIT(A). AS THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT PASS THE ORDERS ON MERITS DUE TO NON- APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF THE AFORESAID REASONS THEREFORE THE ASSEEEE SHALL BE A LIBERTY TO RAISE ALL ISSUES INCLUDING, THE SQUARELY COVERING OF PENALTY CASE BY HPCL MITTAL ENERGY LTD (THIRD MEMBE R'S CASE), BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SHALL DECIDE THE PENALTY APPEAL WHILE ALSO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE HPCL MITTAL ENERGY LTD. (SUPRA) (TH IRD MEMBER CASE). HENCE CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AS PROPER NOTICES HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE FORE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD AND EVEN OTHERWISE THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT PASS THE ORDERS ON MERIT, HENCE, PROPER COURSE WOULD BE TO SET ASIDE THE CASES TO THE FILE S OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH WHILE AFFORDING REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT. SD/- (N.K.CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH DATE: 26.11.2018 /GP/SR. PS. ITA NOS. 481&482/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) VERMA METAL INDUSTRIES V. DY. CIT 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: VERMA METAL INDUSTRIES, 5623 -3 RD FLOOR SADAR BAZAR, DELHI INDUSTRIES EXT. AREA OPP. DIC OFFIC E KATHUA (2) THE RESPONDENT: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX CIRCLE-1- JAMMU (3) THE CIT(APPEALS) JAMMU (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T. TRUE COPY BY ORDER