Sh. Shamshul Islam Sajid, Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 5669/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6943 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHEODAN SINGH BHADORIA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVINDRA AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH MEERUT CAMP, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 56 69/DEL./2014 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 2010-11 SHAMSHUL ISLAM SAJID VS. ITO 128, PAIDAMAL BAZAR WARD 2(3) MEERUT MEERUT PAN : AWKPS8320D ASSESSEE BY : SH. RAVINDRA AGGARWAL, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. SHEODAN SI NGH BHADORIA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 16/12/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.02.2016 ORDER PER I.C.SUDHIR, J.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- MEERUT DATED 20.08.2014 AND PERTAINS TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST APPELLATE ORD ER ON SEVERAL GROUNDS, OUT OF WHICH IN GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN REJECTING THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICA TION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN DEFAULT. 3. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN DEFAULT AFTE R REJECTING THE REQUEST OF ADJOURNMENT AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE APPEAL ON I TS MERITS. THE LD. AR ITA NO.5669/DEL/2014 SHAMSHUL ISLAM SAJID 2 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT GOOD CASE ON ME RITS. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE PROPERLY REPRESENTED DUE TO S OME CONFUSION BETWEEN THE THE LD. CA WHO WAS TO CO-ORDINATE WITH THE LD. AUT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. TH E LD. AR, THEREFORE, REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ALSO PASSED EX PARTE U/S 144 O F THE ACT DUE TO LACK OF PROPER REPRESENTATION OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE B Y THE AUTHORIZED COUNSEL. HE UNDERTOOK THAT ASSESSEE WILL FULLY CO-OPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IF THE OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN TO PRESENT ITS CASE TO THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. LD SR. DR REFERRED TO FIRST APPELLATE ORDER, WHEREIN IN PARA NO. 2, LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THE DATES OF HEARING FIXED ON WHI CH THE ASSESSEE EITHER DID NOT APPEAR OR FILED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION. UNDER THAT BACKGROUND THE LAST ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS NOT ENTERTAINED ON 20.8 .2014. 5. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSION, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER NOTING SEVERAL DATES FIXED FOR HEARING AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOMETIME DID NOT APPEAR AND SOMETIME MOVED APPLICATION FOR ADJOU RNMENT, HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN DEFAULT WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT ON ITS MERITS. IN SUCH A SITUATION WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CO-OPERATING LD. CIT(A) O UGHT TO HAVE DECIDE THE APPEAL ON ITS MERITS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. INSTEAD OF LD. CIT HAS SIMPLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN DEFAULT. 6. SINCE THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE HAS SUBM ITTED THAT IT WAS DUE TO LACK OF PROPER REPRESENTATION OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE PART OF HIS COUNSEL BEFORE THE A.O. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE PROPERLY PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH DIRECTION TO THE AO TO FRAM E THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ITA NO.5669/DEL/2014 SHAMSHUL ISLAM SAJID 3 ALSO DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFI CER SO THAT JUST ASSESSMENT CAN BE FRAMED. THE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE THUS ALLOWED AND REMAINING GROUND NO. 3 QUESTIONING THE MERIT OF ADDITION SUSTAINED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12/02/201 6). SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (I.C.SUDHIR) ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 12 / 02/2016 *BINITA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO.5669/DEL/2014 SHAMSHUL ISLAM SAJID 4 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 12.02.2016 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 12.02.2016 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.