RAMAN JAIN, NEW DELHI V. ITO, WARD- 44(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 5774/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9353 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AMOL SINHA SH A SHVINI KR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5774/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 RAMAN JAIN, VS. ITO, WARD 44(1), HOUSE NO. 484, NEW DELHI KOHAT ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, DELHI (PAN: AOXPR8018Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. AMOL SINHA, SH. A SHVINI KR. ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SURENDER PAL, SR. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.7.2017 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-15, NEW DELHI RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON AS MANY AS 15 GROUNDS. HO WEVER, THE MAIN ISSUE ARGUED BEFORE US IS THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTAN TIATE ITS CLAIM AND PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER. 2 3. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LD. CIT( A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUS TICE BY WAY OF EXPARTE ORDER IN NOT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIE S TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. HENCE , HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH ON MERITS AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER THEREON. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL THAT LD. CI T(A) HAS PASSED THE EX-PARTE NON-SPEAKING ORDER AND DISMISSE D THE APPEAL BY NOT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSE SSEE, WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT LD. CIT(A), HAS ONLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO AND PAS SED THE EXPARTE ORDER, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW . THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DIS PUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PARTIES AND PASS A 3 SPEAKING ORDER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS COUNSEL IS DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND APPEAR BEFORE HIM ON 28.01.2019 AT 10.00 AM AND PRODUCE ALL THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE HIM TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM AND NOT TO TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19/12/2018. SD/- SD/- [L.P. SAHU] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED:19/12/2018 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR