P.P. Auto Innovators , Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 36(4), New Delhi

ITA 581/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3191 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL GANDHI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(1); 80IC; 80IC; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ITA NO.581/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 M/S. P.P. AUTO INNOVATORS, 231, KALYAN VIHAR, DELHI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(4), NEW DELHI PAN :AALFP4647H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 28/09/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-12, NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE L D. CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING AN ORD ER UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY DISMI SSING THE APPELLANT BY SH. RAJIV SAXENA, ADV. SH. MS. SUMANGLA SAXENA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. ANIL GANDHI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 13.10.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13.10.2021 2 ITA NO.581/DEL/2018 APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT EX PARTE, THEREBY, VIOLATIN G THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS OVERLOOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT, AS THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM IS NON SPEAKING AND WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT THE ID COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS IGNORED THE JUDICIAL RULING IN GUJRAT THEMIS BIOSYN LTD. (74 IT D 339 AHD. ITAT), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 250(6) MAKE S IT OBLIGATORY FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO PAS S A SPEAKING ORDER DECIDING THE POINTS RAISED IN APPEAL, STATING HIS REASONS FOR THE DECISION, AS SUCH. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS BAD BOTH IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ON FACTS. 5. THAT THE INTIMATION SO RECEIVED U/S 143(1) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DISALLOWING ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS BAD IN LAW AND DEVOID OF ME RITS. 6. THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONA BLE CAUSE FROM FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y.2016-17 WIT HIN THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S. 139[1 ] OF INCOME TAX AC T, 1961, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IC AS MADE BY THE APPELLAN T DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED AS PER PAST HISTORY OF THE APPELLANT. 7. THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S 80IC OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS ALSO BAD AT LAW AND AGAINST THE RATIO AS HELD IN THE CASE OF ITO V S. VENKATAIAH BY HON'BLE ITAT, HYDERA BAD BENCH IN ITA NUMBER 984/HYD/2011, ISSUE WAS EXACTLY SIMILAR WITH ASSESSEE'S CASE. THE SAID RATIO HAS BEEN HELD BY VA RIOUS COURTS AND TRIBUNALS. 8. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A,B,C IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE SETTLED LAW ON THE SUBJECT. 9. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO RESERVE TO ITSELF T HE RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, SUBSTITUTE AND VARY ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT AND BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONS/DISALLO WANCES MADE AS ABOVE BE DELETED. THE INTEREST AS CHARGED BE CANCEL LED AND THE APPEAL BE ALLOWED. 3 ITA NO.581/DEL/2018 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST ORDE R DATED 30/12/2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) BY THE DCIT, CENTRAL PROC ESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT APPEAL WAS BELATED AND NO APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY WAS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT EVEN THE AS SESSEE HAD FILED FACTUALLY INCORRECT INFORMATION I.E. NO DELA Y IN THE RELEVANT COLUMN OF THE PRO-FORMA FOR FILING APPEAL. NO COMPL IANCE OF NOTICE SENT BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FIXING THE DATE OF THE H EARING WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, THE LD. CIT( A) TREATED THE APPEAL AS INVALID. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SI DES. BEFORE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT ADJOURNMEN T ON MANY OCCASIONS. THE HEARING OF APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED FROM 17/02/2021 TO 11/03/2021, ON THE REQUEST OF LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER WAS FURTHER ADJOURNED ON T HREE OCCASIONS, I.E., 11/03/2021, 15/07/2021 AND 20/09/2 021. BEFORE US, ON 13/10/2021, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE AGAIN REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT FOR FILING ADDITION AL GROUND IN THE APPEAL. IN VIEW OF REPEATED ADJOURNMENTS SOUGHT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND ISSUE-IN-DISPUT E INVOLVED IN APPEAL NOT DECIDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE MER IT, THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTE D. 3.1 WE HAVE NOTED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING IT AS INVALID. THE APPEAL BY T HE ASSESSEE IS A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT AND WHICH SHOULD NOT BE DENIED ON THE GROUND OF NO CONDONATION APPLICATION FILED. IN THE INTERES T OF SUBSTANTIAL 4 ITA NO.581/DEL/2018 JUSTICE, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE MATT ER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALONG WITH APPLICATION FOR CONDONATI ONA OF THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(A) MAY CONSI DER CONDONATION OF THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL AS PER LAW AND THEREA FTER, HE MAY DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBE RTY TO RAISE ANY ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) MAY DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH OCTOBER, 2021 SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 13 TH OCTOBER, 2021. RK/- (DTDC) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI