Northbrook Jute Co. Ltd., Kolkata V. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 723/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1840 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARINDAMA BHATTACHERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: S GNGOPADHYAY PARTNER
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, D , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH D KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.723/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 NORTHBROOK JUTE CO. LTD., 16A, BRABAOURNE ROAD, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKTA-700001 [ PAN NO.AABCN 5589 P ] / V/S . DCIT, CIRCLE-1, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 7 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-69 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI S. GNGOPADHYAY, PARTNER /BY RESPONDENT SHRI ARINDAMA BHATTACHERJEE, ADDL. CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 02-01-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25-01-2018 /O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, KOLKATA DATED 14.03.2016. ASSESSME NT WAS FRAMED BY DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30.12.2011 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-10. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT TODAY. HOWEVER, WE NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EX-PARTE ORDER. THEREFORE, WE DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPE AL AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS ITA NO.723/KOL/2016 A.Y. 20 09-10 NORTHBROOK JUTE CO. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIR -1, KOL PAGE 2 AVAILABLE ON RECORDS AND HEARING THE LD. DR. ACCORD INGLY THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED. 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) PASSED EX PARTE ON 14.03.2016 DUE TO NON APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. A GAINST THE IMPUGNED EX PARTE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE US AND SUBMITTED IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT THE NO NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SUBMITTED . AS SUCH, IT WAS PLEADED BEFORE US IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER HA S BEEN PASSED WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON PERUSAL OF APPELLATE ORDER, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER EX PARTE WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY R EASON FOR CONFIRMING THE SAME ON MERITS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT REQUIRE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN WRITING WITH R EASONING. BUT WE FIND FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDE R OF AO WITHOUT DECIDING THE SAME ON MERIT. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT ALLOWED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE PRINCIPLE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM IS THE BASIC CONCEPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE EXPRESSION AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM IMPLIES THAT A PERSON MUST BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF. THIS PRINCIPLE IS SINE QUA NON OF EVERY CIVILIZED SOCIETY. THE RIGHT TO NOTICE, RIGHT TO PRESENT CAS E AND EVIDENCE, RIGHT TO REBUT ADVERSE EVIDENCE, RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINATION, RIGHT TO LEGA L REPRESENTATION, DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE TO PARTY, REPORT OF ENQUIRY TO BE SHOWN TO THE OTHER PARTY AND REASONED DECISIONS OR SPEAKING ORDERS. WE TOOK THIS GUIDANCE FOR RIGHT OF HEARING, FROM THE RATIO AS IS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA, WHEREIN HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS LAID DO WN THAT RULE OF FAIR HEARING IS NECESSARY BEFORE PASSING ANY ORDER. WE FIND THAT IT IS PRE-DECISION HEARING STANDARD OF NORM OF RULE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. WE FIND THAT IN THIS INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN PROPER HEARING. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND TO REPRES ENT HIS CASE. THEREFORE, IN EXERCISE OF POWER CONFERRED UNDER RULE 28 OF TRIBUN AL RULES, WE RESTORE THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) FOR RECONSIDERATION ALL GRO UNDS OF APPEAL AFTER ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEVERTHELESS, TO MENTION THAT THE ITA NO.723/KOL/2016 A.Y. 20 09-10 NORTHBROOK JUTE CO. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIR -1, KOL PAGE 3 ASSESSEE WILL COOPERATE IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS A ND HIS FAILURE WILL ENTAIL CONFIRMATION OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE A O. THE ASSESSEE WILL FILE NECESSARY EVIDENCES ON WHICH HE WANTS TO RELY UPON. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 5. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25/01/2018 SD/- SD/- ( % ') ( ') (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *DKP, SR.P.S ) - 25/01/2018 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-NORTHBROOK JUTE CO. LTD., 16A, BRABOURNE ROAD 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKAT-001 2. /RESPONDENT-DCIT, CIRCLE-1, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQ., 7 TH FL,KOLKATA-69 3. , - / CONCERNED CIT 4. - - / CIT (A) 5. . %%, , , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 2 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO ,,