Shel Khanna, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-37(1), New Delhi

ITA 7234/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7050 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: A K THAKUR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. S . SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 7234 /DEL/2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2013 - 14 SHEL KHANNA, C - 28, 1 ST FLOOR, CC COLONY, NAN AK PIAO GURUDWARA, NEW DELHI - 110007 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 37 (1 ), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A GDPK5906G ASSESSEE BY : SH. A. K. THAKUR , ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. S. L. ANURAGI , SR. DR DATE OF HEAR ING: 11 . 04 .201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 .04 .201 9 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 13 , NEW DELHI DATED 18.09 .2018 . 2. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE BENCH AS THE REASON FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING WAS NOT FOUND TO BE PLAUSIBLE ONE. 3. IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E WAS DISMISSED BY HIM AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR ON THE DATES OF HEARING FIXED BY HIM. THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: SL. NO. DATE OF HEARING REMARK 1. 19.02.2018 NOTICE DATED 17.01.2018 WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT VIA SPEED POST (ED69040092IN ). THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. /4S PER TRACKING RECORD ITA NO . 7234 /DEL /201 8 SHEL KHANNA 2 AVAILABLE AT THE WEBSITE OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT (WWW.INDIADOST.AOV.IN). THIS ITEM WAS NOT CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT 2. 05.03.2018 NOTICE DATED 22.02.2018 WAS ISSUE D TO THE APPELLANT VIA SPEED POST (ED69040332IN). THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. AS PER TRACKING RECORD AVAILABLE AT THE WEBSITE OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT (WWW.INDIADOST.AOV.IN) , THIS ITEM WAS NOT CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. HOW EVER, APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED 27.02.2018 MENTIONING CHANGE OF ADDRESS. 3. 19.03.2018 NOTICE DATED 06.03.2018 WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT VIA SPEED POST (ED69040377IN) AT THE NEW ADDRESS COMMUNICATED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 27.02. 2018. THIS NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. APPELLANT FILED A LETTER DATED 19.03.2018 DURING THIS HEARING OF THE APPEAL AND SH. PANKAJ KUMAR, CA ATTENDED THE HEARING OF THE CASE & WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 13.04.2018. 4. 13.04.2018 APPELLANT S AR SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS GRANTED FOR 17.04.2018. 5. 17.04.2018 APPELLANT FILED A REPLY DATED 17.04.2018 DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL AND SH. PANKAJ KUMAR, CA ATTENDED THE HEARING OF THE CASE. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 04.05.2018. 6. 04.05.2018 ON AR'S REQUEST THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 21.05.2018. 7. 21.05.2018 LETTER DATED 21.05.2018 WAS FILED AND REQUEST WAS MADE FOR ADJOURNMENT. AS PER REQUEST, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 30.05.2018. 8. 30.05.2018 SH. PANKAJ KUMAR, CA ATTENDED THE HEARINQ OF THE CASE. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 22.06.2018. 9. 22.06.2018 NONE ATTENDED. 10. 10.09.2018 NOTICE DATED 28.08.2018 WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT VIA SPEED POST (ED92754386IN). THIS NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. SH. PANKAJ KUMAR, CA ATTENDED THE HEARING OF THE CASE. 4 . WHEN ASKED BY THE BENCH WHETHER MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR GRANTING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, T HE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED FOR GRANT OF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE . ITA NO . 7234 /DEL /201 8 SHEL KHANNA 3 5 . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVA ILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THIS APPEAL ARE THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM ON THE DATES FIXED FOR HEARING BY HIM. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VI EW THAT IN ORDER TO RENDER SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IN THE CASE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT BY IMPOSING A COST ON THE ASSESSEE. I IMPOSE A COST OF RS.1000/ - ON THE ASSESSEE AND RESTORE THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO DEPOSIT RS.1000/ - TOWARDS COST BEFORE DATE OF HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND FILE AN EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 AT NEW DELHI) SD/ - (N. S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 /0 4 /2019 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR