Delhi Express Travels (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 574/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4217 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-04-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: GOPAL NATHANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA : VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 574/DEL/10 ASSTT. YR: 2006-07 DELHI EXPRESS TRAVELS PVT. LTD., VS. INCOME-TAX OFF ICER, P-13, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, WARD-10(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN/ GIR NO. AABCD4908Q ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI GOPAL NATHANI CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K. CHAND DR O R D E R PER G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, V.P. : THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ARISES OUT O F THE ORDER DATED 10- 12-2009 OF THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SEVERAL GROUNDS, BUT THE MAIN GROUND WAS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL EX PAR TE AND IT HAS RESULTED IN DENIAL OF FAIR AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD IN THE MATTER. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED TH AT THE COMPANY HAD NOT MADE ITS APPEARANCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE DA TE WHEN IT WAS POSTED FOR HEARING. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK C ONTAINING 69 PAGES WHEREIN IT HAS ENCLOSED DETAILS OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DELHI HIGH 2 COURT IN CONNECTION WITH THE WINDING UP OF PETITIO N AGAINST THE COMPANY. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING T HE HIGH COURT PASSED AN ORDER DATED 22-5-2009 FOR WINDING UP OF THE COMPANY AND THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WAS APPOINTED AND THE OFFICE OF THE COMP ANY WAS SEALED ON 8-6- 2009 BY THE OFFICE OF THE LIQUIDATOR AND THERE WAS NO ATTENDANCE ON THE PART OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND SUBSEQUENTLY ON THE BASIS OF THE DELHI HIGH COURTS ORDER DATED 17-7-2009, THE POSSESSION OF TH E REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE COMPANY WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE COMPANY. THE COMPA NY IN THE LIGHT OF THESE PROBLEMS COULD NOT MAKE PROPER APPEARANCE BE FORE THE CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIE D A FAIR AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER. HE REQUES TED THE MATTER TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). 4. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY OPPO SED THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORDS OF THE DEPARTM ENT. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS AND F IND THE FACTS STATED BY THE APPELLANT TO BE CORRECT IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING WINDING UP PROCEEDIN GS AGAINST THE COMPANY IN THE HIGH COURT AND THERE WAS A SEAL OF T HE OFFICE PREVENTING THE DIRECTOR TO REPRESENT THE CASE OF THE COMPANY BEFOR E THE CIT(A). MOREOVER, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPOSED OFF ANYTHING ON MERITS OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JU STICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS F ILE FOR A DECISION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, OF COURSE. AFTER AFFORDING REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PARTIES. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 3 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED TO B E ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN ON 9-4-2010. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV ) ( G.E. VEERABHADRAPP A ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 9 TH APRIL 2010. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR