Anthena Multitrade Pvt Ltd, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 3(4), New Delhi

ITA 7590/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7276 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.7590/DEL/201 9 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) HEARING CONDUCTED VIA WEBEX ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2018 OF CIT(A)-7, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ORDER IS ASSAILED ON VARIOUS GROUNDS INCLUDING GROUND NO.2 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS BAD BOTH THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS AS THE SAME HA S BEEN PASSED WITHOUT HAVING JURISDICTION, THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT HAVI NG JURISDICTION, HENCE THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS TOTALLY WRONG, BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. M/S. ANTHENA MULTITRADE PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GOOD LIFE IMPEX PVT. LTD.) D-13, BHAGWAN DASS NAGAR, EAST PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI-110 026 PAN-AADCG 1017H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER(E), WARD 6(2), (OLD JURISDICTION) ITO, WARD NO.3, NEW DELHI. (NEW JURISDICTION) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY NONE (APPLICATION REJECTED) DATE OF HEARING 17.08.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07.09.2021 ITA NO.7590 /DEL/ 2019 ANTHENA MULTITRADE PVT. LTD. VS. ITO PAGE 2 OF 4 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHA LF OF THE PARTIES. SR. DR MR. R.K. GUPTA HAS SENT AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION IN ALL THE 35 CASES LISTED FOR HEARING TODAY BY STATING THAT : I HAVE TO ATTEND PERSONAL COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES TODAY. THEREFORE, I AM NOT ABLE TO ATTEND TODAYS PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE CASE MAY KI NDLY BE ADJOURNED TO ANY CONVENIENT DATE. FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE GRATE FUL. 3 . THE SAID REQUEST WAS REJECTED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX AS AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED GROU ND. SIMILARLY ASSESSEE'S ADJOURNMENT WAS ALSO REJECTED CONSIDERING THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 4. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WERE CHALLENGED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WERE DISMISSED AS THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED BEFORE THE CIT(A). RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR, REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480 (MP) AMONG OTHERS, THE APP EAL WAS DISMISSED EX-PARTE. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. S PECIFIC GROUND NO. 2 IS BEING TAKEN UP FOR CONSIDERATION. 6. A PERUSAL OF PARA-4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, DESPITE THE SA ME THE ASSESSEE REMAIN UNREPRESENTED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE ADDRESS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT ; 65, BENTINCK STREET, ASHA CHAMBER, ROOM NO.2C, KOLKATA-700 001. FLAT NO.3C, 76/3, CHRISOPHER ROAD, KOLKATA-700 046. ITA NO.7590 /DEL/ 2019 ANTHENA MULTITRADE PVT. LTD. VS. ITO PAGE 3 OF 4 6.1 THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS SEEN IS SHOWN TO BE AS UNDER : M/S. GOOD LIFE IMPEX PVT. LTD. FLAT NO.3C, 76/3, CHRISOPHER ROAD, KOLKATA-700 046. 6.2 IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT IN THE MEMO APPEALS FIL ED BEFORE THE ITAT THE ADDRESS FOR SENDING NOTICES ETC. HAS BEEN SHOWN AS UNDER: D-13, BHAGWAN DASS NAGAR, EAST PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI-110 026. 6.3 ACCORDINGLY, IT APPEARS THAT LACK OF REPRESENTA TION MAY HAVE BEEN ON ACCOUNT OF CONFUSION/CHANGE OF ADDRESS ETC. NOTWIT HSTANDING THIS FACT, EVEN OTHERWISE THE ORDER PASSED DOES NOT MEET THE STATUT ORY REQUIREMENTS AS SET OUT IN SUB SECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T. THE PROVISION MANDATES THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY NOT ONLY SHOULD BE IN WRITING BUT SHOULD ALSO STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION; THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION. THESE REQUIREMENTS IN TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS SEEN ARE NOT MET. THE RELEVANT PROVISION IS EXTRAC TED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS : SECTION 250 PROCEDURE IN APPEAL. X X X X X X (6) THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DISPO SING OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATIO N, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASON FOR THE DECISION. ITA NO.7590 /DEL/ 2019 ANTHENA MULTITRADE PVT. LTD. VS. ITO PAGE 4 OF 4 6.4 AS NOTICED EARLIER, EVEN OTHERWISE THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT CAN BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR REMAINING UNREPRESENTED DUE TO LACK OF COMMUNICATION ARISING ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS ETC. 7. ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS SET OUT HEREINABOVE IN THE INTERESTS OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASID E AND REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKI NG ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AT THE TIME OF VIRTUAL HEARING ITSELF IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES VIA WEBEX. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 07 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 07/09/2021 PK/PS/POONAM (CHD) KAVITA ARORA, SPS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI