Smt. K.D. Mishra, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 66/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5669 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 08-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KISHORE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH D DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, JM SHRI K. D. RANJAN , AM I. T. APPEAL NO. 66 (DEL) OF 2010. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07. SHRI K. D. MISHRA, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, J 137, S A K E T, VS. CO. WARD : 7 (4) , N E W D E L H I. N E W D E L H I. PAN/GIR NO. AAGPM9428G. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESP ONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANDEEP GUPTA, C. A.; DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI B. KISHORE, SR. D. R.; O R D E R. PER K. D. RANJAN, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07 ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-X, NEW DELHI. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO DIS MISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE WITHOUT ALLOWING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY AND IN UPHOLD ING THE ASSESSMENT AS FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE FACTS OF THE CASE STATED IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 AND SECTION 56(2)(VI) OF THE I. T. ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE 2 I. T. APPEAL NO. 66 (DEL) OF 2010. PROCEEDINGS, NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) DECIDED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. 3. BEFORE US THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT NO OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN UPHELD WITHOUT PROVIDING THE SUFFICIENT O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HA D DECIDED THE APPEAL WITHOUT AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WE ALSO FIND THAT HE HAS ADJUDICATED UPON ONLY ONE GRO UND OF APPEAL I.E. RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68. HOWEVER, THE ISSUE RELATING TO OTHER ADDITION OF RS.1,80,000/- REMAINED TO BE DECIDED. WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WITH THE DIRECTION THAT HE WI LL DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 08 TH MARCH, 2010. SD/- SD/- [ A. D. JAIN ] [ K. D. RANJAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 08 TH MARCH, 2010. *MEHTA * 3 I. T. APPEAL NO. 66 (DEL) OF 2010. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT, 4. CIT (APPEALS), 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT.