Smt. Maya Rastogi, Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 6771/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6948 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 1991-1992
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHEODAN SINGH BHADORIA
• Assessee Lawyers: M P RASTORI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6771 & 6772/DEL./2014 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 1991-92 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1994-95 MAYA RASTOGI VS. ITO C-1, C-2, MODEL TOWN, WARD-1(4) KANKERKHERA MEERUT MEERUT PAN : AJDPR3500L ASSESSEE BY : SH. M.P. RASTORI, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. SHEODAN SI NGH BHADORIA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 16/12/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.02.2016 ORDER PER I.C.SUDHIR, J.M. THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(A)- MEERUT DATED 16.10.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92 AND 1994- 95. 2. THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDERS HAVE BEEN QUESTION ED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SEVERAL GROUNDS OUT OF WHICH IN GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 , THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED ACTION OF THE LD. CIT IN DISPOSING OF TH E FIRST APPEALS WITHOUT ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ITA NO.6771-72/DEL/2014 MAYA RASTOGI 2 3. WE THUS DECIDED TO ADJUDICATE UPON GROUND NOS . 1 AND 2 OF THE APPEALS, FIRST. 4. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS THE LD. AR SUB MITTED THAT IT WAS A HIGH PITCHED ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS QUESTIONED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEALS, THE LD . COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAD MOVED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ON 14.10.2014 STATING THEREIN THAT HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND HEARING ON 16.10.2014. REJECTING THE SAID APPLICATION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT SOME PROPER REASON WAS THERE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISS THE APPEALS IN DEFAULT WITHOUT DISCUSSING MERITS OF THE APPEALS. THUS, IT WAS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 5. THE LD. SR. DR ON THE OTHER HAND POINTED OUT T HAT DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT BOTHER TO CO- OPERATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND THUS LD. CIT(A) WAS HAVING NO OPTION BUT TO DISMISS THE APPEALS. 6. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THA T EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CO-OPERATING WITH THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS SUPPOSED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEALS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INSTEAD THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SI MPLY DISMISSED THE APPEALS IN DEFAULT AFTER NOTING CERTAIN DATES I.E. 2.9.2014 W HEN THE APPEALS WERE FIXED AS PER NOTICE DATED 7.8.2014 AND THEREAFTER ON 16.10.2 014 WHEN THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON 14.10.2014 HAD MADE ADJOURNMENT APP LICATION SHOWING HIS DIFFICULTY TO ATTEND THE HEARING FIXED ON 16.10.201 4. THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THIS APPLICATION AND DISPOSED OFF THE APPEALS BY D ISMISSING THE SAME IN DEFAULT. WE THUS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SET ASIDE THE MA TTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEALS AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTE D TO CO-OPERATIVE WITH ITA NO.6771-72/DEL/2014 MAYA RASTOGI 3 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN DISPOSAL OF THE AP PEALS. THE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE THUS ALLOWED AND REMAINING GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12/02/2016 ). SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (I.C.SUDHIR) ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 12 / 02/2016 *BINITA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO.6771-72/DEL/2014 MAYA RASTOGI 4 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 12.02.2016 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 12.02.2016 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.