B.P. Agro Industries, Amritsar. V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar.

ITA 622/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8670 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHABIR HANDOO
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 622 & 623 (ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 PAN: AAFFB3119E B.P. AGRO INDUSTRIES VPO THAROO, TARN TARAN AMRITSAR VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. ASHWANI KALIA (CA) RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. SHABIR HANDOO (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 22/02/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29/03/2017 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), AMRITSAR, AND DATED 28.10.201 5 FOR ASST. YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE EXPARTE BY HOLDIN G THAT ON VARIOUS DATES, THE ASSESSEE OR THE COUNSEL DID NOT ATTEND T HE PROCEEDINGS. 3. THE LD. AR IN THIS RESPECT SUBMITTED THAT THE CO UNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY ATTENDED THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CI T(A) ON THE DATE OF HEARING BEFORE NOON BUT WAS INFORMED BY THE STAFF T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS BUSY IN SOME MEETING AND HE SHOULD COME IN THE AFTE RNOON. IN THE AFTERNOON THE COUNSEL WAITED FOR MORE THAN HALF AN HOUR FOR THE LD. ITA NOS. 622 & 623 (ASR)/2015 ASSTT. YEA RS 2010-11 & 2011-1 2 CIT(A) AND ULTIMATELY THE STAFF INFORMED THAT THEY WILL CALL HIM WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) COMES AND IF NEEDED A FRESH NOTICE WILL BE ISSUED. THE LD. AR HOWEVER RECEIVED NO TELEPHONE CALL AND THE COUNSEL WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT A FRESH NOTICE OF HEARING WILL BE ISSUED, BUT TO THE UTTER SURPRISE EXPARTE ORDER DISMISSING THE APP EAL WAS RECEIVED. 4. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT SUF FICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN THIS R ESPECT INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE VARIOUS DATES FIXED BY LD. CIT(A) WHICH WERE MENTIONED BY LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GON E THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS THOUG H MENTIONED THAT A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL ITSELF HAS STATED THAT HE DULY AT TENDED THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND WAS INFORMED THAT HE WILL BE CALLED WHEN LD. CIT(A) COMES OR A FRESH NOTICE WILL BE GIV EN TO HIM. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL EXPARTE WITHOUT COM MENTING ON THE MERITS. IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECI DE THE ISSUE UNDER APPEAL BASED UPON THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 6. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY LD. CIT(A) ON THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 IS MISPL ACED AS LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS. ITA NOS. 622 & 623 (ASR)/2015 ASSTT. YEA RS 2010-11 & 2011-1 3 THE HON'BLE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF ITAT IN THE ORDER D ATED 20.08.1999 IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT THEMIS BIOSYN LTD. VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS HELD AS UNDER: 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS CLEARLY VIOLATIVE OF THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF S. 250(6), WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE AP PELLATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) ARE TO STATE THE POINTS ARISING IN THE A PPEAL, THE DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR SUCH D ECISION. THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE OF THE PROVISION IS THAT SUCH ORDERS ARE SUBJECT TO FURTHER APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL. SPEAKING ORDER W OULD OBVIOUSLY ENABLE A PARTY TO KNOW PRECISE POINTS DECIDED IN HI S FAVOUR OR AGAINST HIM. ABSENCE OF THE FORMULATION OF THE POIN T FOR DECISION FOR WANT OF CLARITY IN A DECISION UNDOUBTEDLY PUTS A PA RTY IN QUANDARY. SEC. 250(6) EXPRESSLY EMBODIES THE PRINCIPLES OF NA TURAL JUSTICE AND SUCH A PROVISION IS CLEARLY MANDATORY IN NATURE. TH E IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN VIOLATION OF THE PROV ISIONS OF S. 250(6) CANNOT THEREFORE, BE SUSTAINED. REGARDING THE DECIS IONS OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. (SUPR A) CITED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE SAID DECISION IS C LEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE. SEC 254 REFERRING TO THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL CONFERS PLENARY JURISDICTION ON THE TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF PASSING ORDERS UNDER S. 254(1). THERE IS NO SUCH EXPRESS ST IPULATION IN S. 254 AS CONTAINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 250(6) RELATING TO THE ORDERS OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, REL IANCE PLACED BY THE CIT(A) ON MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) IS ENTIRELY MISPLACED. SIMILARLY, THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (SUPRA ) CITED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND DOES NOT SUPP ORT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT BACK THE FILE TO LD. C IT(A), WHO SHOULD PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD AND SHOULD COOPERATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS. ITA NOS. 622 & 623 (ASR)/2015 ASSTT. YEA RS 2010-11 & 2011-1 4 7. IN NUTSHELL, THE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.03.2017 . SD/- SD/- (N.K. CHOUDHRY) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER GP/SR.PS/ DATED: 29/03/2017 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER