M/s. Asian Travel Trade, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6913/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4173 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R C DANDAY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6913 /DE L/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 M/S. ASIAN TRAVEL TRADE, 9, 2 ND FLOOR, B - 7, NELSON MANDELA ROAD, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD - 49(5), NEW DELHI PAN : AKWPS1581Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SANKALP SHARMA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. R.C. DANDAY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 14.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04.10.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 30/09/2014 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) - XXX, NEW DELHI [ IN SHORT THE CIT - (A) ] IN RELATION TO TAX LIABILI TY UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) AND INTEREST LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT , FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2005 - 06. THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 2 ITA NO. 6913/DEL/2014 1. THAT THE ID CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERIT AND INSTEAD DISMISSING THE SAME EX - PARTE IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WITHOUT GRANTING TO THE ASSESSEE A FAIR, PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE FINDING THAT AFTER 15.07.2011 THE APPEAL WAS FIXED EIGHT TIMES AND THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED TO FINALIZED THE CASE, IS WHOLLY INCORRECT AND IS CONTRAR Y TO MATERIAL ON RECORD. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ASSESS HAS FURNISHED ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL/DOCUMENTS FOR DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRE SENT APPEAL WAS COVERED BY THE ORDER OFFICE PREDECESSOR. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BE SET ASIDE AND THE CIT(A) BE DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 2. A T THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IMPUGNED O RDER HAS BEEN PASSED EX - PARTY IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND NO REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS GIVEN. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT DECIDING THE MATTER ON MERIT. HE REQUESTED THAT MAT TER MIGHT BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT - (A) FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE ON MERIT. 3. LEARNED SR. DR , ON THE OTHER HAND , OPPOSED FOR RESTORING THE APPEAL BACK TO THE LD. CIT - (A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIXED EIGHT TIMES BUT NONE ATTENDE D BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT - (A) AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ALREADY PROVIDED MORE THAN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT - (A) ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL WITH FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 3 ITA NO. 6913/DEL/2014 2. AGGRIEVED APPELLANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED. IN COMPLIANCE TO APPELLATE NOTICE SH. AMIT SHARMA, ADVOCATE ATTENDED ON 18.07.2013 AND TAKE ADJOURNMENT FOR FILING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF 18.08.2013. IN THIS CASE THE FIRST HEARING W AS FIXED ON 15.07.2011. FROM THAT DATE TILL TODAY APPROXIMATELY 8 TIMES HEARINGS WERE FIXED AND APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED TO FINALIZE THE CASE. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS DECIDED EX - PARTY, IT IS DIS MISSED. IF APPELLANT WILL APPEAL AND PROVE THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT ATTENDED ON THE HEARING, ORDER MAY BE RECALLED AND WILL BE DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. 5. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FINDING AND A FTER CO NSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF LEARNED CIT - (A). ACCORDING TO THE SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED CIT - (A) AT THE TIME OF DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, IS REQUIRED TO MENTION POINT FOR DETERMINATION OF REASONS F OR DECISION OF THE APPEAL ORDER . EVEN IF , THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE HIM, THE LD. CIT - (A) IS BOUND TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS BY GIVING REASONS FOR DECISION IN THE APPEAL ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE LD. CIT - (A) HAS SIMPLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT - (A) CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. FURTHER, O N PERU SAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE FIND THAT ON FIRST HEARING, THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND THEREAFTER , HE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT - (A) . IN OUR OPINION, FOR THE NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT IVE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SUFFER SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE. 6. WE, ACCORDING LY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT - (A) AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND PASS A SPEAK ING ORDER DECIDING THE ISSUE ON MERIT BY GIVING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT 4 ITA NO. 6913/DEL/2014 OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO ENSURE HIS PRESENCE EITHER IN PERSON OR THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ARE ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 T H OCT. , 201 7 . S D / - S D / - ( AM I T SHUKLA ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 4 T H OCTOBER , 201 7 . RK / - (D.T.D) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI