M/s Anil Dutt, Karnal V. ACIT, Panipat

ITA 6080/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7012 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS ANUSHA KHURANA
• Assessee Lawyers: O P SAPRA
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6080/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI ANIL DUTT, C/O RAJESH BAHL, 2211, SECTOR 13, URBAN ESTATE, KARNAL. PAN : ABJPD8568Q VS. ACIT, PANIPAT CIRCLE, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PANIPAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI O.P. SAPRA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : MRS. ANUSHA KHURANA, SR.DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) DATED 13 TH OCTOBER, 2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER I N DISALLOWING INTEREST OF RS.4221167/- PAID TO BANK, WHI CH IS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), WHICH IS HIG HLY ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 2. THAT THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B AT RS.424656/- IS ILLEGAL AT ANY RATE AND VERY EXCESSIVE. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND OR DELETE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF AP PEAL. ITA NO.6080/DEL/2010 2 2. VIDE APPLICATION DATED 26 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011, THE LEARNED AR HAS SOUGHT PERMISSION TO RAISE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GRO UND:- THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED ON FACTS AND UND ER THE LAW IN DECIDING THE APPEAL IN AN EX-PARTE MANNER. 3. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE FACTS RAISED IN THE ADDIT IONAL GROUND ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) IS AN EX PARTE ORDER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE SAME SHOULD BE ADMITTED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR OBJECTED THE R EQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. AS THE FACTS SUPPORTIN G THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ADMIT THE SAME. 6. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THOUGH LEA RNED CIT (A) HAS WRITTEN ON FIRST PAGE IN COLUMN NO.9 AS PRESENT FO R APPELLANT SHRI ANIL GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT, BUT, ON THE FIXED DAT E OF HEARING THE SAID SHRI ANIL GOYAL HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOUR NMENT. LEARNED CIT (A) HAS REJECTED THE REQUEST OF ADJOURNMENT ON THE GR OUND THAT ON EARLIER DATE I.E., ON 30 TH OCTOBER, 2010, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED WITH THE STIPULATION OF NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT. HE HAS REJECTED THE REQUEST OF ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION AS PER ORDER SHEET ENTRY RECORDED AS BELOW:- PRESENT SH. ANIL GOYAL ACCOUNTANT. AGAIN FILED AN A PPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THIS TIME ON THE GROUND THAT THE COUNS EL IS OUT OF STATION. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, THE PROCEEDI NGS WERE ADJOURNED ON HIS REQUEST AND IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT NO F URTHER ADJOURNMENT WOULD BE ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT AN D THE FACT THAT SUFFICIENT TIME HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, THE REQUEST OF FURTHER ADJOURNMENT CANNOT BE ITA NO.6080/DEL/2010 3 ENTERTAINED AND HENCE IS REJECTED. THE APPEAL WILL BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 7. AFTER REJECTING SUCH REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT, LEAR NED CIT (A) HAS PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 8. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH REASONABLE AND SUFFICI ENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS NOT GRANTED BY LEARNED CIT (A). HE, THERE FORE, PLEADED THAT IT WILL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR REJECTED SUCH R EQUEST OF THE LEARNED AR. 10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT IT IS A FIT CASE WHERE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED AR THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) FOR RE-ADJUDIC ATION AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHOULD BE AC CEPTED. TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DELAY, WE THINK IT PROPER THAT THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE LEARNED CIT (A) ON 12 TH DECEMBER, 2011 WHEN LEARNED CIT (A) WILL HEAR THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE SAID DAT E OF HEARING BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A). IN THIS MANNER, THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DECIDED AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED DIRECTIONS. AS WE HAVE R ESTORED THE ENTIRE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF CIT (A), WE ARE NOT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ABOUT THE MERITS WHICH ARE TO BE RE-ADJUDICATED BY LEARNED CIT (A) IN ITA NO.6080/DEL/2010 4 PURSUANCE OF THIS ORDER. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.09.20 11. SD/- SD/- [K.G. BANSAL] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 26.09.2011. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES