M/s. Parnika Commercial & Estates (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 5550/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4275 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA TRIPATHY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. KULDIP SINGH , JM ITA NO. 5550 /DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010 - 1 1 M/S PARNIKA COMMERCIAL & ESTATES P. LTD., D - 64 , 6 TH FLOOR, HIMALAYA HOUSE, 23KG MARG, NEW DELHI - 110001 VS ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 14, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A AACP0555C ASSESSEE BY : SH. KAPIL GOEL , ADV. REVENUE BY : SMT . PARAMITA TRIPATHY, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 19 .09 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 . 0 9 .201 7 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.08 .2014 OF LD. CIT(A) - XV II , NEW DELHI . 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE WORTHY CIT(A) IN APPEAL NO. 46/13 - 14 DATED 22/04/2013 HAS ERRED IN PASSING THAT ORDER IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRE D IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 4,09,759/ - BY DISALLOWING THE PURCHASES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS ITA NO. 5550 /DEL /201 4 PARNIKA COMMERCIAL & ESTATES P. LTD. 2 BONAFIDE PURCHASE FOR THE USE ON ITS PROJECT & ALS O PAID THE VAT ON THE SAME. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION, DELETION OR AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 3 . FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.1 0.2010 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.2,69,07,051/ - WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.4,09,759/ - ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS EXPE NDITURE DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD PURCHASES. 4 . BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION BY PASSING THE EX - PARTE ORDER AND OBSERVING AS UNDER: THE FIRST NOTICE WAS S ENT TO THE APPELLANT ON 12.06.20 14 BY SPEED POST FOR ATTENDING ON 20.06.2014. ON 20.06.2014 A LETTER WAS FI L ED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 02.07.2014. ON 02. 07 . 2014 NEITHER ANYBODY ATTENDED NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. ANOTHER NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE APPELLANT O N 09.07.2014 FOR ATTENDING ON 24.07.20 14. ON 24.07.2014 NEITHER ANYBODY ATTENDED NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. NOTICE WA S ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT AN 31. 07.2014 FOR ATTENDING ON 11.08.2014. ON 11.08.2014 A LETTER WAS AGAIN FILED BY THE APPELLAN T FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THE REQUEST WAS REJECTED. THE APPELLANT DID NOT ATTEND THEREAFTER . ITA NO. 5550 /DEL /201 4 PARNIKA COMMERCIAL & ESTATES P. LTD. 3 5 . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND DECIDED THE APPE AL EX - PARTE . IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD. CIT(A) APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 6 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE ON MERIT. THEREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT( A) HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT ON 11.08.2014 WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE HIM, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS REJECTED. HOWEVER, NO REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR REJECTING THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS W ELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM . WE, THEREFORE, BY CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 5550 /DEL /201 4 PARNIKA COMMERCIAL & ESTATES P. LTD. 4 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . (O RD E R PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25 /0 9 /2017 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( KULDIP S INGH ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 25 /09 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR