Richmond Educational Society, Noida V. JCIT, Range-1, Noida

ITA 6021/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1996 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI , . . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM & SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM / ITA NO. 6021/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S RICHMOND EDUCATINAL SOCIETY, D-108, SECTOR 41, NOIDA, .......... /APPELLANT UTTAR PRADESH-201301 PAN-AABTR0992D VS JCIT, RANGE-1, NOIDA . / RESPONDENT !'# / APPELLANT BY : SH. DEEPESH GARG, ADV !'# / RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.N. MEENA, SR. DR DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI / ITA NO. 6045/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 OPINDER SINGH MARWAH, E-34, LAJPAT NAGAR-3 .......... /APPELLANT NEW DELHI PAN-AAKPM6200G VS ACIT, CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI . / RESPONDENT !'# / APPELLANT BY : SH. ARUN KISHORE, CA !'# / RESPONDENT BY : MS. RAKHI VIMAL, SR. DR PAGE | 2 DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI / ITA NO. 6049/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 KAPIL JHALANI, C-2/31, SAFDARJUNG .......... /APPELLANT DEVELOPMENT AREA, NEW DELHI PAN-AAHPJ5871F VS ACIT, CIRCLE-32(1) NEW DELHI . / RESPONDENT !'# / APPELLANT BY : NONE !'# / RESPONDENT BY : MS. ASHIMA NEB, SR. DR DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI / ITA NO.6048/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 KAPIL JHALANI, C-2/31, SAFDARJUNG .......... /APPELLANT DEVELOPMENT AREA, NEW DELHI PAN-AAHPJ5871F VS ACIT, CIRCLE-32(1) NEW DELHI . / RESPONDENT !'# / APPELLANT BY : NONE !'# / RESPONDENT BY : MS. ASHIMA NEB, SR. DR DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI / ITA NO.6058/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 AMIT SAXENA, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM .......... /APPELLANT ESTATE OF SH. SUSHIL SAXENA PROP. M/S SAXSONS INTERNATIONAL C-2/261, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI, PAN-AATPS9277N PAGE | 3 VS DCIT, CIRCLE-22(1), NEW DELHI . / RESPONDENT !'# / APPELLANT BY : SH. RAJESH MAHNA, ADV !'# / RESPONDENT BY : MS. ASHIMA NEB, SR. DR DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI / ITA NO.6132 /DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 GIAN CHAND ARORA, B-14, MADHUBAN COLONY, .......... /APPELLANT NEAR PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI PAN-AADPA9441Q VS ITO, WARD-58(3), NEW DELHI . / RESPONDENT !'# / APPELLANT BY : NONE !'# / RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.N. MEENA, SR. DR DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI / ITA NO.5332/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 RAHUL RAGHAV, C/O KAPIL GOEL ADV. .......... /APPELLANT F-26/124 SECTOR 7 ROHINI DELHI-110085 PAN-AORPR2121Q VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, NOIDA . / RESPONDENT !'# / APPELLANT BY : SH. KAPIL GOEL, ADV !'# / RESPONDENT BY : SH. SARAS KUMAR, SR. DR PAGE | 4 DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI / ITA NO.5369 /DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SUNEEL GALGOTIA, 4405/6, PRAKASH APARTMENTS-II, .......... /APPELLANT 5, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ, NOIDA., PAN-AEQPG5100F VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA .. / RESPONDENT !'# /APPELLANT BY : NONE !'# /RESPONDENT BY : SH. SARAS KUMAR, SR. DR DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI / ITA NO. 5434/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SH. RANJEET KUMAR, C-338, RAM PAL CHOWK, .......... /APPELLANT SECTOR-7, DWARKA, NEW DELHI PAN-ALAPK9771F VS ITO, WARD-33(4), . / RESPONDENT NEW DELHI !'# / APPELLANT BY : SH. ASHISH GOYAL, CA !'# / RESPONDENT BY : SH. SARAS KUMAR, SR. DR $%!&'( / DATE OF HEARING : 27.11.2019 )* !&'( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.11.2019 PAGE | 5 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSE SSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2010-11/ 2011- 12/ 2012-13 AND ALSO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14/ 2014 -15 AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 14 3(3)/144 OF THE ACT. 2. THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN LISTED FO R HEARING AND WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE SAME BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORD ER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. IN THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE APPEALS EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION. IN S OME APPEALS, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED BY CIT(A) ON MERITS BUT EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN SOME OF THE CASES, THERE IS NO REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US BUT BECAUSE OF THE ISSUE INVOLVE D, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE SAID APPEALS AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED D R FOR THE REVENUE. 4. IT IS A COMMON CASE RAISED BY DIFFERENT ARS FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EX PARTE ORDER WITHOUT ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. IN OTHER CASES, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT WHERE THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS BUT EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND POINTED OUT THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN AFFORDED TO THE ASS ESSEE. AND IN SOME CASES, THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUES ON MERITS ALSO. PAGE | 6 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEALS AFTER HEARING THE PART IES AND STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND ALSO TH E REASONS FOR THE DECISION. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS, CIT(A) HAS NO POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION BY RELYING ON THE RATIO/ S LAID DOWN IN CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARYA & ANOTHER 118 ITR 461 (SC) AND LA TE TUKOJI RAO HOLKER VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP). IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY APPLYI NG THE ABOVE SAID RATIOS, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUFFERS FRO M INFIRMITY. THE CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE ON MERITS HAVE ALSO TO PRO VIDE REASONS FOR COMING TO THE CONCLUSION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AGAIN SUFFERS FROM INFIRMITY. IN THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS, WE FIND THAT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AND IN MOST OF THE CASES, HAD FAILED TO DE CIDE THE APPEALS BY PASSING REASONED ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7. IN SOME OF THE APPEALS, CIT(A) HAD DECIDED THE I SSUE ON MERITS BUT WITHOUT AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. SUCH ORDER/S SUFFERS FROM INFIRMITY AS IT VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN SUCH CASES ALSO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHOULD BE AFFORDED TO THE AS SESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUES ON MERITS. PAGE | 7 8. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS BY A REASONED ORDER, AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HE ARING TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEF ORE THE CIT(A) AND PARTICIPATE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE APPEA LS ARE THUS DECIDED ON THIS PRELIMINARY ISSUE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERIT S OF THE ADDITION. 9. IN ITA NO. 6058/DEL/2017 IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPIRED AND THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS FI LED BY HIS LEGAL HEIR I.E. HIS WIFE. HOWEVER, THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AL SO EXPIRED DURING THE PENDING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED AR FOR T HE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT AN APPLICATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO BRING ON RECORD THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE AS HIS LEGAL HEIR. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED ORDER IN THE NAME OF WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAD DEMISED. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. IN LINE WITH OUR DECISION IN PARAS ABOVE, WE REMIT THI S APPEAL ALSO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WHO SHALL DECIDE THE SAME AF TER TAKING THE LEGAL HEIR ON RECORD AND AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. HENCE THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS ARE RESTORED BACK T O THE FILE OF RESPECTIVE CIT(A)/S TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS A FTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COMPLY WITH NOTICES ISSUED BY THE CIT(A ). THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS IS THUS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. PAGE | 8 SINCE THE APPEALS ARE BEING DECIDED ON THE PRELIMIN ARY ISSUE WE ARE NOT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE RAISED ON MERIT. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) #(, #(, #(, #(, /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , , , , /JUDICIAL MEMBER / DATED : 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2019. SH #+!&-.#-&/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $0 1 2 / THE CIT(A) 4. $3 $0 / THE PR. CIT 5. 6. -45& 6 6 / DR, ITAT, DELHI 578%/ GUARD FILE. #+$ #+$ #+$ #+$ / BY ORDER , -&& // TRUE COPY // :;,< , 6 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI