Sangeeta Sehgal, Delhi V. ITO ward-36(5), New Delhi

ITA 6256/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6611 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.6256/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) SANGEETA SEHGAL, 95, THIRD FLOOR, STATE BANK COLONY, DELHI-110 009 PAN-AHCPS 8966N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(5), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. R.K. GUPTA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 16.08.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09.09.2021 HEARING CONDUCT ED VIA WEBEX ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W HEREIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 20.05.2019 OF CIT(A) -12 PERTAINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ASSAILED ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON CONSIDERING THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 WHEREIN PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE INVOKED INCLUDING THE PLEADING OF LACK OF OPPORTUNITY, IT WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO PROCEED WITH THE PRESENT APPE AL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE LD. SR. DR. ITA NO .6256 /DEL/2019 SANGEETA SEHGAL VS. CIT PAGE 2 OF 3 3. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRING TO SECTION 2 (22)(E) WERE ASSAILE D BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SPECIFIC P ARA-3 SHOWS THAT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ASSAILING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). AS IS EVIDENT, THE SUBMISSIONS WERE CONSIDERED TO BE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR INTERFERING WITH THE ORDER AND THE A DDITION MADE WAS SUSTAINED. EXAMINING THE CONCLUSION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GROU ND RAISED, IT IS BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT THIS FACT WAS NOT COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED LEGALLY THAT IN CASE THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION S ARE INADEQUATE FOR GRANT OF RELIEF PRAYED FORTH FROM A QUASI-ADMINISTRATIVE AUT HORITY, THEN THE SAID AUTHORITY IS DUTY BOUND TO CONFRONT THIS FACT TO TH E APPELLANT. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD THAT ADMITTEDLY THIS FACT WAS NOT CONFRO NTED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC NOTICE THEREON THE ASSESSEE S PRAYER MADE BY THE SAID GROUND HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. IT IS INCUMBENT UPON TH E ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY TO SPECIFICALLY CONFRONT THE FACT TO THE APPELLANT THA T BASED ON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE CASE CANNOT BE ALLOWED. SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD THEREAFTER HAS TO BE PROVIDED. IT IS WELL SETTLED T HAT BY MERE FILING OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RIGHT TO BE HEARD IS NOT BEING WAIVED O FF. 4. CONSIDERING THE GROUND AND THE FACTS ON RECORD F OR THE REASONS SET OUT HEREINABOVE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ACCORDINGLY, IS SE T ASIDE AND THE ISSUES ARE RESTORED BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING ITA NO .6256 /DEL/2019 SANGEETA SEHGAL VS. CIT PAGE 3 OF 3 HEARD. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AT THE TIME OF VIR TUAL HEARING ITSELF IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES VIA WEBEX. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 09 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021. SD/- (D IVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 09/09/2021 PK/PS/POONAM(CHD) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI