M/s. Hal Offshore Ltd., New Delhi V. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5846/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4556 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRAVAN GOTRU
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5846/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S HAL OFFSHORE LTD., VS. JCIT, RANGE-50, C/O M/S RRA TAXINDIA, NEW DELHI D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI 49 (PAN: AAACH3144B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SOMIL AGGARWAL, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SHRAVAN GOTRU, SR. DR . ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2015 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-35, NEW DELHI REL ATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDE R:- 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF RS. 6,42,000/- ULS 272A(2)(G) THAT TOO WITHOUT ASSUMING JURISDICTION AS PER LAW AND 2 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 2. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF RS.6,42,0001- ULS 272A(2)(G) IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. AO ULS 272A(2)(G) WHICH IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER O R AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY STAGE AND ALL THE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 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 3 EXPARTE ORDER IN NOT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIE S TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. HENC E, 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-PARE NON-SPEAKING ORDER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY NOT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSES SEE AND ALSO DID NOT TOUCH THE MERIT OF THE CASE, WHICH IS AGAIN ST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT LD. CIT(A), HAS GIVEN HIS FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER 01.10.2015 VIDE PARA NO. 3 & 4 AT PAGE NO. 1 TO 2 OF HIS ORDER. THE SAID RELEVANT PARAS IS REPRO DUCED AS UNDER:- 3. IT IS OBSERVED THAT INSTEAD OF PROVIDING DETAILS / SUBMISSIONS, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ATTENDED THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ON GIVEN DATES, AS ENUMERATED ABOVE. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT DOES NOT HAVE ANY INTENTION OF MAKING AN APPEARANCE AND DEFENDING ITS CASE. IT IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE REVENUES 4 GOODWILL OF PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT FOR PREPARING ITS CASE. 4. THEREFORE, IT GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PRESSING ITS APPEAL. IT IS NOTED THAT IT HAS BECOME A FASHION IN PRESENT TIMES THAT APPELLANT OFTEN FILES APPEAL MERELY TO LOCK THE REVENUE OR TO KEEP THE ISSUES ALIVE IN APPEAL. I THEREFORE, HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON ACCOUNT OF NON-APPEARANCE. MY DECISION IS ALSO CORROBORATED BY THE DECISION IN THE FOLLOWING CASES. - CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) (P) LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) - ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR CWT (1997) 223 ITR 490 (MP) 6.1 AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LD. CI T(A), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A NON-SPEAKING EXPARTE ORDER, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE S OF LAW. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRES H, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO THE PARTIES AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS AL SO DIRECTED TO FULLY 5 COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) AND PRODUCE ALL THE D OCUMENTS BEFORE HIM TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM AND NOT TO TAKE ANY UNNE CESSARY ADJOURNMENT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/09/2017. SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 06/09/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR