Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97951 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
27-11-2015
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC 1
Next Hearing Date
23-11-2015
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
22-09-2015
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.5545/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 I.T.A.NO.5546/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 I.T.A.NO.5547/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI SANJEEV SHARMA, VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 26/58, WEST PATEL NAGAR, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3, NEW DELHI. DELHI. (PAN: AARPS7233G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI V.K. TULSI AN, CA, SHRI SANKARSH DWIVEDI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASHI S MOHANTY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 26.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: O R D E R PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, J.M. THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ALL THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESS EE HAVE BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI, A LL DATED 21.7.2015 BY WHICH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DISMISSED O N THE ALLEGATION OF NON- PROSECUTION WITHOUT ANY ADJUDICATION ON THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CA REFULLY PERUSED THE APPEAL RECORDS AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL PLAC ED BEFORE US. LD. AR VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NO LEGAL R IGHT TO DISMISS APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE SUMMARILY WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THEM ON THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE I.T.A. NOS. 5545, 5546, 5547/D/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07, 07-08, 08-09 2 ASSESSEE, HENCE, THESE APPEALS SHOULD BE RESTORED T O THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR A FRESH ADJUDICATION. 3. LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ACTION OF THE FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COOPERATING AND NOT COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICES, THEN THE CIT(A) HAS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DISMISS THE APPEALS. HOWEVER, HE FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT T O HAVE DECIDED THE APPEALS ON MERITS ON THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM AND SUMM ARY DISMISSAL OF APPEALS FOR NON-PROSECUTION IS NOT A PROPER RECOURSE. 4. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEALS ON ALL GROUNDS R AISED BEFORE HIM EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROSECUTE THE APPEALS AND APPEALS CANNOT BE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION AT THE FIRST APPELLATE STAGE. THUS, WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND RESTORE THESE APPEALS TO THE FI LE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION THAT HE SHALL ADJUDICATE THE APPEALS AFTE R PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.11 .2015. SD/- SD/- ( J.S. REDDY) (C. M. GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED: 27TH NOVEMBER, 2015 GS I.T.A. NOS. 5545, 5546, 5547/D/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07, 07-08, 08-09 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR
Mehul