Mukesh Mittal HUF, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 34(2), New Delhi

ITA 5351/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5669 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: J P JAIN
• 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. 5351/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 MUKESH MITTAL (HUF) VS. ITO, WARD 34(2), BM-108, WEST SHALIMAR BAGH, ROOM NO. 807, 8 TH FLOOR, NEW DELHI CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI - 2 (PAN: AAIHM2154H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. J.P. JAIN, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR . ORDER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.5.2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-12, NEW DELHI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- I) THAT THE APPEAL ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS BAD I N LAW AND IS NOT BASED ON FACTS. II) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNI TY TO THE APPELLANT TO PRESENT HIS CASE. III) THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE MANDATORY E-FILING OF APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN STIPULATED IN SECTION 246/249/2 50 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IV) THAT EVEN OTHERWISE TOO, THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FI LED ELECTRONICALLY ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF LEGAL KNOWLED GE / 2 ADVICE INVOLVING NO DELIBERATE DEFAULT ON THE PART OF APPELLANT. V) THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY AO ARE BAD IN LAW AND AR E NOT BASED ON FACTS. VI) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY/ AMEND OR ADD ANY ONE OR MORE GROUNDS. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT LD. CIT( A) HAS NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CAS E; PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITH OUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE APPEAL. HENCE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECID E THE SAME AFRESH ON MERITS AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER THEREON, AFTER GIV ING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EXPA RTE ORDER WITHOUT DISCUSSING IN DETAIL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO DID NOT DEAL THE ISSUE ON MERIT AND PASSED A NON-SPEAKI NG ORDER BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT POIN TING OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HOWEVER, IT IS A SETTLED LAW T HAT EVEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER HAS TO BE SPEAKING ONE. 3 5.1 IN THIS REGARD, I DRAW SUPPORT FROM HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE M/S SAHARA INDIA (FARMS) VS. CIT & ANR. IN [ 2008] 300 ITR 403 WHEREIN IT HAS HELD THAT EVEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE OR DER HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 6. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, AS AFORESAID, I REMIT B ACK THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILES OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO POINT OUT THE DEFECT, IF ANY, SPECIFICALLY AND THEN CONSI DER EACH AND EVERY ASPECTS OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL AND DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER BY CONSIDER ALL THE EVI DENCES/DOCUMENTS. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE ALL THE EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS ETC. BEFORE HIM TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE AND RECTIFY THE DEFECT, IF ANY, TO BE POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CI T(A). ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED NOT TO TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT IN THE PROCEEDINGS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 04/02/2019. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 04/02/2019 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR