M/s. Jai Ambey Ganga Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., HANUMANGARH V. ITO, HANUMANGARH

ITA 551/JODH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9469 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVDESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N R MED TIYA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Application of stay

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V.D. RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER SA NO. 02 / JU / 2011 A/O ITA NO. 551 / JU/ 2010 & ITA NO: 551 / JU / 2010 ASSTT. YEAR: 2007 2008 M/S JAI AMBEY GANGA V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. WARD-1, A-7, INDUSTRIAL AREA, HANUMANGARH. HANUMANGARH JN. PAN:AAACJ8474E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.R.MED TIYA, A.R., RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AVDESH KU MAR, D.R., ORDER PER V.D. RAO: JM THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ABOVE STAY APPLICATION BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL BY STATING THAT THERE IS A HUGE DEMAND BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND MADE A HIGH PEAK ASSESSMENT. 2. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE REJECTED THE STA Y APPLICATION AND WE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. 2 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE MAIN ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF STA TEMENT GIVEN BY MR. KAUSAL AND WIFE OF MR. KAUSAL. WHEN HE WAS SPECIFI CALLY ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PERM IT HIM TO EXAMINE ABOVE COUPLE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED. IN APP EAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A SPECIFIC REQUEST PERMIT HIM TO EXAMINE MR. KAUSAL AND HIS WIFE, HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) REJECTED THE EXAMINATION OF THE ABO VE COUPLE ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS ALSO A MERE ACADEMIC. 4. AS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAK ING OF HIS SALES THROUGH KAUSAL KUMAR AND THE STATEMENT OF KAUSAL KU MAR AND HIS WIFE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO CROSS EX AMINATION WAS PERMITTED TO HIM. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS VIOLATION OF PR INCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO E XAMINE MR. KAUSAL KUMAR COUPLE. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D.R. HAS N O OBJECTION AS AGAINST THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSE THE RECORDS AND GONE TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE ONE OF THE REASON FOR ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS 3 OF STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE MR. KAUSAL KUMAR AND HIS WIFE, THEREFORE, AN OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE MR. KAUSAL KUMAR AND HIS WIFE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE O RDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, TO DO A DE NOVO ASSESSMENT AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE MR. KAUSAL KUMAR AND HIS WIFE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. THE ORDER WAS PASSED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED ON 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (V.D. RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 9 TH FEBRUARY,2011 KAMAL KUMAR COPY FORWARDED TO:- THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/ITO/CIT(A)/D.R/GUARD FILE.