Sanjay Kumar Verma, Haridwar V. ITO, Roorkee

ITA 5080/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7007 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 03-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMESH CHAND DUBEY
• Assessee Lawyers: TILAK RAJ
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5080/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-1998 SANJAY KUMAR VERMA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HARIDWAR ROAD LHAKSAR WARD 2 DISTT. HARIDWAR (UTTARAKHAND) ROORKEE (PAN: ABLPV4697C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. TILAK RAJ, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. UMESH CHAND DUBEY, SR . DR DATE OF HEARING : 03-10-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 03-10-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.9.2011 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, DEHRADUN RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-1998. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDE R:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONSULT THE RECORD AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT ADJUDICATING ON THE POINTS RAISED. 2. THAT THE AO AS WELL AS CIT(A) DUTY BOUND TO FOLL OW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT BUT ON BOTH 2 STAGES THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS IGNORED. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT DECIDE THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE ORDER U/S. 144/147 DATED 2.3.05 DOES NOT EXIST AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT ON 28.11.2006 AND AO CANNOT REVALIDATE THE ASSESSMENT WHICH THE AO TRIED TO DO IT U/S. 154. 4. THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IS BINDING ON ALL LOWER COURTS OF THE STATE AS NO SLP WAS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS LACONIC AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED WERE NOT CONSIDERED AND AFTER HONBLE HIGH COURT DECISION, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 144/148 DOES NOT EXIST AND IS A NULLITY AND NO DEMAND CAN BE PRESSED ON ACCOUNT OF OLD ORDER U/S. 144. 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. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT( A), WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN HIS FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER 20.9.2011 VIDE PARA NO. 2, 3, 3.1 & 4 AT PAGE NO. 2 OF HIS ORDER. THE SAID RELEVANT PARAS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 2. THE AFORESAID APPEAL FILED IN FORM NO. 35 IN TER MS OF RULE 45 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 IS IN TIME . THE APPELLANTS GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE BEING REPRODUCED (UNALTERED) AS UNDER:- 3 (1) THAT THE ORDER IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. (2) THAT THE AO IS DUTY BOUND TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHICH THE AO IGNORED WHICH IS AN OFFENCE. (3) THAT THE GIST OF THE AO CLEARLY INDICATES HERE INTENTION AND VIEW ABOUT THE DECISION OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT. (4) THAT THE AO HAS NO JURISDICTION TO PROCEED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF JUDGMENT U/S. 144/147 DATED 2.3.2015 WHICH IS NO MORE IN EXISTENCE AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT. (5) THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE REPLIES FILED BY THE LD. AR, THE AUTHORITIES C ITED BY HIM, THE ORDER OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AND THE ORDER U/S. 154 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE LD. A O, HAVE ALL BEEN VERY CAREFULLY EXAMINED. IT IS SEEN TH AT THE LD. AO HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER WHICH CALLS FOR NO INTERFERENCE, MORE SO BECAUSE IT HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE MATERIAL BEFORE HER, INCLUDIN G THE DIRECTIONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND. 3.1 IN VIEW OF THIS POSITION, THE APPELLANTS APPEAL I S DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4.1 AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A NON- SPEAKING ORDER ON THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE WHICH IS NOT S USTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ALSO AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF N ATURAL JUSTICE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED 4 ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISP UTE AFRESH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PARTIES AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/10/2016. SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 03/10/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 5