Mr. Sumeet Bawa, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6713/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2766 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI , JM ITA NO. 6713/DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010 - 11 MR. SUMEET BAWA, BPS HOUSE, M - 161, COMMUNI TY CENTRE, GULMOHAR ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI - 110049 VS DCIT, CIRCLE - 3 (1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A A EPB2767P ASSESSEE BY : SH. R. S. SINGHVI, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. KAUSHLENDRA TI WARI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 26.12 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT : 28 .12 .201 7 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2014 OF LD. CIT(A) - VI , NEW DELHI 2 . FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. (I) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.33,48,531/ - EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS FULLY COVERED BY ORDER OF CI T(A) IN THE ASSESSES OWN CASE FOR PROCEEDING YEAR. (II) THAT THE CI T(A) HAS DISREGARDED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN AN ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY MANNER WITHOUT RECORDING ANY FINDING ON MERITS. ITA NO . 6713 /DE L/201 4 SUMEET BAWA 2 2. THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, THE EX PARTE ORDER IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY AS THERE WAS NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY IN THE ABSENCE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE TO PROVISIONS OF SEC.250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR FORGO ANY OR A LL OF THE GROUNDS AS MAY BE NECESSARY AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 4. THAT ORDERS PASSED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED ON FACTS AND SAME ARE BAD IN LAW. 3 . VIDE GROUND NO. 2, THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE EX - PARTE ORDER P ASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. 4 . FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.2,27,37,870/ - WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.33,48,531/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. 5 . BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. C IT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY PASSING THE EX - PARTE ORDER BY OBSERVING THAT NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS ISSUED ON 03.07.2014 FOR HEARING OF THE CASE ON 07.08.2014 BUT THE ITA NO . 6713 /DE L/201 4 SUMEET BAWA 3 ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR. HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE BY OBSERVING IN PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: 4. THEREFORE, IT GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT THE ASSESSE E IS NOT INTERESTED IN PRESSING ITS APPEAL. IT IS OBSER VE D THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SOU GHT ANY ADJOURNMENT ALSO, WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. IT IS NOTED THAT IT HAS BECOME A FASHION IN PRESENT TIMES THAT APPELLANT OFTEN FILES APPEAL MERELY TO LOCK THE REVENUE OR TO KE EP THE ISSUES ALIVE IN APPEAL. I THEREFORE, HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON AC COUNT OF NON APPEARANCE. MY DECISION IS ALSO CORROBORATED BY THE DECISION IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: CIT V. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) (P) LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (DEL) ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP) 6 . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION BY PASSING THE EX - PARTE ORDER. 7 . IN HER RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. SR. DR SUPPOR TED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS ITA NO . 6713 /DE L/201 4 SUMEET BAWA 4 AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDER S EX - PARTE. THE LD. CIT(A) ALTHOUGH MENTIONED THAT THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 07.08.2014 BUT NOWHERE HE HAS POINTED OUT THAT NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER TH E MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM . I, THEREFORE, BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMAND THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW A FTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28 /12 /2017) SD/ - SD/ - ( BEENA A. PILLAI ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE D: 28 /12 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR