Manoj Bhatia, Delhi V. ITO, Ward-34(4), New Delohi

ITA 4932/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6886 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: C S ANANAD; MAYANK MAHESHWARI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4932/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 MANOJ BHATIA, VS. ITO, WARD 34(4) RAKESH DAULAT RAM & CO., CA NEW DELHI 2 ND FLOOR, NEAR MUSKAN CHOWK, NAVEEN SHAHDARA, DELHI 110 032 (PAN: ACVPB0741J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. C.S. ANANAD, ADV. & SH. MAYANK MAHESHWARI, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.9.2017 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-12, NEW DELHI RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON AS MANY AS 06 GROUNDS. HO WEVER, THE MAIN ISSUE ARGUED BEFORE US IS THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTAN TIATE ITS CLAIM AND PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER. 2. 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. 2 3. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LD. CIT( A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUS TICE BY WAY OF EXPARTE ORDER IN NOT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIE S TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. HENCE , HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH ON MERITS AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER THEREON. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL THAT LD. CI T(A) HAS PASSED THE EX-PARTE NON-SPEAKING ORDER AND DISMISSE D THE APPEAL BY NOT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSE SSEE, WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. I FURTHER F IND THAT LD. CIT(A), HAS ONLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO AND PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THERE FORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH, IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PARTIES AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS COUNSEL IS DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS AN D APPEAR BEFORE HIM ON 27.02.2019 AT 10.00 AM AND PRODUCE ALL THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE HIM TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM AND NOT TO TAKE ANY UNNE CESSARY ADJOURNMENT. 3 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 03/01/2019. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:03/01/2019 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 4