Delhi UP Madhya Pradesh Transport Co. (West), New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle- 63(1), New Delhi

ITA 6908/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5172 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 6908/DEL/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL ME MBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUN TANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 6908/DEL/20 17 (A.Y 2013-14) (THROUGH VIDEO CON FERENCING) DELHI UP MADHYA PRADESH TRANSPORT CO. (WEST) 5023, RUI MANDI, SADAR BAZAR, NEW DELHI AAAFD3939K (APPELLANT) VS ACIT CIRCLE-63(1) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 19/09/2017 PASSED BY CIT(A)-20, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEAL) HAS ER RED IN PASSING THE APPEAL ORDER EX-PARTE. 2. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN HO LDING 'THAT APPELLANT HAS DELIBERATELY NOT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICES. AC TUALLY OUT OF THE FOUR DATES GIVEN BY THE CIT [APPEALS) THE NOTICE FOR ON 07/06/ 2017 WAS NOT RECEIVED AND ON 11/07/2017 AND 09/08/2017 AN APPLICATION FOR ADJ OURNMENT WAS GRANTED BY THE LEARNED CIT. APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. PRAKASH DUEBY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 16.09.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27.09.2021 2 ITA NO. 6908/DEL/2017 3. FOR COMPLIANCE ON 11/09/2017, THE APPELLANT WAS PR EVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE AS THE ACCOUNTANT WHO WAS APPEARING IN THIS C ASE, SUDDENLY RESIGNED. 4. LEARNED CIT [A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER DISMISSING TH E APPEAL WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND IS BAD IN LAW NEEDS TO BE CANCELLED. 5. LEARNED CIT HAS FAILED TO DISCUSS AND ADJUDICATE O N THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERITS. 6. LEARNED CIT APPEALS DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT DISALL OWANCES MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN MADE ON ADHOC BASIS AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. 7. LEARNED CIT [APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND BE DID NOT FIND ANY DEFECT. 8. LEARNED CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND ANY EXPENSES WHICH ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. 9. LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE NET PRO FIT OF 0.62% IS VERY LOW WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY COMPARABLE CASES OR THE OB SERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WAS SATISFIED WITH THE REPLIE S SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. 10. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL IS BAD I N LAW AND HAS BEEN MADE IN A HURRY AND NEED TO BE SET ASIDE. 11. APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT BE SET ASIDE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY BE GIVEN TO APPELLANT TO PRESENT HIS CA SE ON MERITS APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFYING GROUNDS OF APPEAL . 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F CARGO MOVEMENT, TRANSPORT CONTRACT AND DAILY ROAD TRANSPORT SERVICE S, CARRY OF GOODS, LOADING AND UNLOADING OF GOODS TO AND FROM ONE DESTINATION TO OTHER DESTINATION UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S DELHI UP TRANSPORT COMPAN Y (WEST). THE ASSESSEE FIRM CONSISTS OF THE SIX PARTNERS. RETURN OF INCOM E WAS FILED ON 29/9/2013 3 ITA NO. 6908/DEL/2017 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 26,29,140/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE A T RS.58,33,010/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT (A) PASSED EX-PARTE ORDER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED FOR THE AS SESSEE DESPITE GIVING NOTICE WHICH HAS NOT RETURN BACK. THEREFORE, WE PR OCEED ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND TH E CONTENTIONS TAKEN BEFORE THESE AUTHORITIES BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IT EMERGED THAT BEFORE T HE CIT(A) THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUDDENLY RESIGNE D AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE NEXT DATE OF HEARINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A ). THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REPRESENT THE CASE PROPERLY. IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO REMAND BACK THE ENTIRE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR PROP ER ADJUDICATION OF EACH OF THE GROUNDS TAKEN BEFORE THE CIT(A). NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF N ATURAL JUSTICE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSE. 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER 4 ITA NO. 6908/DEL/2017 DATED: 27/09/2021 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI