M/s. Newtrack International Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Delhi V. DCIT (TDS), Ghaziabad

ITA 6116/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4091 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 16-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-2 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 6116/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S NEWTRACK INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVES VS. DCIT (T DS) PVT. LTD., AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 105, 3 RD FLOOR, HARGOBIND ENCLAVE, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI DELHI 92 GHAZIABAD (PAN: AACCN7615B) UP 201 010 (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING ON : 16/08/2016 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 16/08/20 16 PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9.9.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), NEW DELHI RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. AUTHORITY BELOW HAS GROSSLY ERRED I N PASSING THE ORDER WHICH IS ERRONEOUS AND BAD AT LAW AND AGA INST THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT NO OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD HAS BEEN GIV EN BY THE LD. A.O BEFORE RAISING THE DEMAND. 3. THAT THE SAID DEMAND IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2 4. THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAVE INTIMATE TO ASSESSEE OR ANY NOTICE BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. 5. THAT LD. AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE RE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN SUBMISSION OF RETURN AND ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE TDS ALONGWITH THE INTERE ST DUE THEREON. 6. THAT LD. AD CANNOT RAISE THE DEMAND U/S 234 THR OUGH INTIMATION U/S 200A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT' 1961. 7. THAT THE FEES U/S 234A IS NEITHER A TAX NOR INTE REST AND HENCE IT CANNOT BE CLAIMED U/S 200A OF THE ACT. 8. THAT THE DEMAND OF LATE FILING FEES U/S 234 AFT ER FILING OF RETURN IS NOT VALID UNDER LAW. 9. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEAL HAVE DID NOT GIV E THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THAT MY COUNSEL ATTEND THE CASE MANY TIMES BUT SHE DID NOT ATTEND THE SAME AND ONE DAY ON 25/08/2015 DUE TO STRIKE AND HE TOLD TO MY COUNSEL YOUR WILL COME AFTER NEXT NOTICE. THEREAFTE R SHE PASSED THE ORDER BEFORE ANY INTIMATION. 10. THE ASSESSEE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND O R ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO BOTH THE PARTIES AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS DEPARTMENT, NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BY ANY OF THE PARTY. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO SERVE THE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, I AM DECIDING THIS APPEAL AS EXPARTE. 3 3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND I FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA NO. 2 HAS ISSUED THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE AS SESSEE DID NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS. FOR READY REFERENCE, I AM REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT PARA NO. 2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: - 2. NONE PUT IN EFFECTIVE APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR THE HEARINGS FIXED ON THE GIVEN DATES , DESPITE ISSUE OF NOTICES BY REGISTERED POST /SPEED POST, AS DULY SERVED. A BRIEF SCHEDULE OF NON- APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS FOLLOWS:- ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 250(1) HEARING OF FIXED FOR RESPONSE OF THE APPELLANT. 8.10.2014 15.10.2014 NONE ATTENDED 15.10.2014 REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT 31.10.2014 NONE ATTENDED 31.10.2014 REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT 24.11.2014 NONE ATTENDED 27.4.2015 07.5.2015 NONE ATTENDED 10.6.2015 25.6.2015 NONE ATTENDED 13.8.2015 25.8.2015 NONE ATTENDED 4. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSE SSEE AND THE TIME GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN BY THE L D. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS C LAIM BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A), I FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING O RDER AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250 OF THE I.T. ACT HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIE D WITH. IN MY 4 CONSIDERED OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN THIS R EGARD BY RELYING UPON THE CASE LAWS AS CITED IN PARA NO. 4 AT PAGE N O. 2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ADJUDICATE D THE ISSUES ON MERITS. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT EVEN THE ADMINIST RATIVE ORDERS HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HENCE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IN THIS CASE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE NEEDS TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AF RESH, AS PER LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE SET ASIDE AN D RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) IS DI RECTED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH AND PASS A PROPER AND SPE AKING ORDER CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. NEEDLESS TO AD D THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD . 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/08/2016 . SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 16/08/2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES