AJMS Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5314/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6463 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5314/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/S. AJMS ENGINEERS PRIVATE LTD., VS. DCIT, CO.CIR CLE 1 (1), 205, IIND FLOOR, VARDHMAN PLAZA, NEW DELHI. MAYUR VIHAR PHASE II, NEW DELHI 110 091. (PAN : AACCA3568Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI S.K. JAIN, DR O R D E R PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE, IS FIL ED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS)-IV, NEW DELHI DATED 27.09.2011 FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE AOS ORDER AND THE CIT(A)S ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED EX-PARTE WIT HOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE; AND HE POINTED OUT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE A O HAS MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER THE ACT) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, HE POINTED OUT TH AT THE NOTICES HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE ADDRESS I.E. LG-21, THAPAR CHAMBER-II, RING ROA D, DELHI. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE ADDRESS TO WHICH THE NOTICES WERE SENT, WAS THE OLD ADDRESS AND THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.5314/DEL./2011 2 COMPANY WAS NOT FUNCTIONING AT THAT ADDRESS. THE F ACT OF THE CHANGE OF THE ADDRESS WAS INTIMATED WELL IN ADVANCE BY LETTER DATED 18.01 .2003 TO THE AO (ITO, COY WARD 1(1)) AND POINTED OUT THAT ITRS FOR AYS 2003-0 4, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 WERE FILED PHYSICALLY DULY STIPULATING THE PRESENT NEW A DDRESS I.E. 205, IIND FLOOR, VARDHMAN MAYUR PLAZA, MAYUR VIHAR PHASE II, DELHI 110 091. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED/ALLEGED NOTI CES U/S 143(2) / 142(1) AS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED AT THE OLD/NON-EXISTENT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT VALID AND ISSUANCE AND SERVING OF 143 (2) NOTICE IS SINE QUA NON FOR COMPLETING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. FURTHER , HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A), ALSO PASSED THE IMPUGNED EX-PARTE ORDER. SO, THE L D. ARS PRAYER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES VIDE APPLICATION DATED 08.01.2014 AND TOO K OUR ATTENTION TO THE SAME. HE PLEADED THAT THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES MAY BE A DMITTED AND THE SAME MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE CIT (A) TO ADJUDICATE THE GROU NDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO. 3. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE DOES NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTI ON FOR ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E MATTER MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE CIT (A) FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIALS ON RECORD. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ADDRESS SHOWN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R IS LG-21, THAPAR CHAMBER-II, RING ROAD, DELHI AND THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS THAT T HEY HAVE LEFT THAT PREMISES AND THE NEW ADDRESS IS 205, IIND FLOOR, VARDHMAN MAYUR PLAZA, MAYUR VIHAR PHASE II, DELHI 110 091. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, TH E CHANGE OF ADDRESS HAD BEEN ITA NO.5314/DEL./2011 3 INTIMATED WELL IN ADVANCE BY LETTER DATED 18.01.200 3 TO THE THEN AO (ITO, COY WARD 1(1)) AND ITRS FOR AYS 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 20 05-06 WERE FILED PHYSICALLY DULY STIPULATING NEW ADDRESS, NAMELY, 205, IIND FLO OR, VARDHMAN MAYUR PLAZA, MAYUR VIHAR PHASE II, DELHI 110 091. WE FIND T HAT THE IMPUGNED CIT (A)S ORDER IS ALSO AN EX-PARTE ORDER. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE US AND WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE C IT (A) TO DECIDE AFRESH ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, OF COURSE AFTER PROVIDING A N OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO COOPER ATE WITH THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT (A). WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (A.T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 11 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-IV, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.