M/s Team 4 Soft Solutions (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5695/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 569520114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 12-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B R R KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VINAY BAHL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5695/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 TEAM 4 SOFT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD., VS. ITO, G-102, SAGAR SADAN APTTS., WARD 16(2), I.P. EXTENSION, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. AACCT3278L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. VINAY BAHL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 18.10.2010 OF CIT(A)-XIX, NEW DELHI PERTAININ G TO THE A.Y. 2007-08. 2. VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ON MERIT. HOWEVER, THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH WERE HEARD ONLY IN REGARD TO GROUND NUMBER SE VEN VIDE WHICH THE ASSESSEE AGITATES THAT OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO. 5695/D/2010 2 3. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT THE S AID ORDER WAS PASSED EX-PARTE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-REPRESE NTATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERV ED THAT ON VARIOUS DATES THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING AND ADJOURNMENTS WERE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER , ON 27.08.2010 NEITHER THE ASSESSEE APPEARED NOR REQUES T FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGITATING THE GROUND RAISED LD. AR GAVE AN ORAL UNDERTAKING BEFORE THE COURT REQUESTING THAT THE AP PEAL MAY BE RESTORED TO THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL PA RTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE THE APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED. 5. LD. DR IN THE FACE OF THE ORAL UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE LD. AR HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE IS RESTORED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT ON 8 .03.2010 AND 13.07.2010 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY SPE ED POST. BY NOTICE DATED 13.07.2010 THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRE D TO BE PRESENT ON 29.07.2010. ON THE SAID DATE AN ADJOURN MENT PETITION WAS MOVE AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 27. 8.2010. ON THE SAID DATE NO ONE WAS PRESENT. IN THE AFOREM ENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TAKING NOTE OF THE ORAL ITA NO. 5695/D/2010 3 UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE LD. AR WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE CIT(A). WE ARE GUIDED IN COMING TO THE SAID CONCLU SION ON ACCOUNT OF THE SETTLED LEGAL PRINCIPLES IN THE CONT EXT OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 7. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF A.K. KRAIPAK VS UNION OF INDIA (1969) 2 SCC 262, HAV E OBSERVED THAT THE AIM OF RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE I S TO SECURE JUSTICE OR TO PUT IT NEGATIVELY TO PREVENT MISCARRI AGE OF JUSTICE. AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM ONE OF THE MAXIMS OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEM NED UNHEARD. THE DUTY TO ACT FAIRLY I.E. THE FAIRPLAY IN ACTION MUST BE EVIDENT AT EVERY STAGE. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL P ROPOSITION THAT IF ANY ORDER BY A JUDICIAL OR A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTH ORITY OR FOR THAT MATTER AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY IS PASSED WHICH IS ADVERSE TO THE PARTY, IMPLICITLY BY READING THE RULES OF NA TURAL JUSTICE INTO IT A RESPONSIBILITY IS CAST ON THE AUTHORITY P ASSING THE ORDER TO GIVE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PERSON. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SAID RULE CANNOT BE OVER-EMPH ASIZED. 8. THUS IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE O F THE SAID ITA NO. 5695/D/2010 4 AUTHORITY I.E. THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION T O DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY WAY OF A SPEAKING O RDER AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS PER THE PRONOUNCEMENT MADE IN THE OPEN COURT. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. SD/- SD/- (K.D. RANJAN) (DI VA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12.9.11 *KAVITA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITA NO. 5695/D/2010 5