Ashok Mittal, Panchkula V. ITO, Panchkula

ITA 86/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 8621514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 85 TO 88/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 TO 2003-04 SHRI ASHOK MITTAL, VS THE ITO, PANCHKULA PARWANOO, DISTT.SOLAN (H.P) PAN NO. AATPM4231B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURINDER BABBAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI DATE OF HEARING : 5.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 5.03.2012 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THESE FOUR APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT(A), SHIMLA DATED 20.10.20 09 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2003-04. 2. IN THESE APPEALS, COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED AND, THEREFORE, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CO MMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 3. COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEALS ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ORDE R PASSED BY LD. CIT(A), SHIMLA WITH REGARD TO THE CHANGE OF JURISDICTION FROM SHIMLA TO CIT, PANCHKULA VIDE F.N O. CIT/SML/JURIS-II/TRANSFER OF CASES/2007-08 DATED 26.12.2007 AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E DUE TO NON PROSECUTION. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT AT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEYOND TIME. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN NOT DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERITS IN RESPECT OF THE VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE HER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI SURIDNER BABBAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, LD. DR AT LENGTH AND HAVE ALSO PERU SED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT VIDE IMPUGNED OR DER, THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONSI DERING THE FACTS AND GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDINGS ON MERITS OF THE CASE. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PUT IN AN APPEARANCE ON THE VARIOUS DATES OF HEARING. THE CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO DISMISS THE APPEALS FOR NON PROSECUTION RELYING ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS. I) CIT VS B.N. BHATTACHARJEE & ANOTHER(1979) 118 ITR 4 61 (SC) II) CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD (DELHI) (1991) 38 ITD 320 III) ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 5. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AH EMDABAD BENCH C IN 3 THE CASE OF GURJRAT THEMIS BIOSYN LTD V JCIT {2000) 74 ITD 339 (AHD). WHILE DECIDING A SIMILAR ISSUE, THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCHC HELD AS UNDER:- 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MA DE BEFORE US. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS CLEARLY VIOLATIVE OF THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 250(6), WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE APPELLATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) ARE TO STATE THE POINTS ARISING IN THE APPEA L, THE DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY THEREON AND THE REASONS F OR SUCH DECISION. THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE OF THE PROV ISION IS THAT SUCH ORDERS ARE SUBJECT TO FURTHER APPEAL T O THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. SPEAKING ORDER WOULD OBVIOUSLY ENABLE A PARTY TO KNOW PRECISE POINTS DECIDED IN HI S FAVOUR OR AGAINST HIM. ABSENCE OF THE FORMULATION O F THE POINT FOR DECISION FOR WANT OF CLARITY IN A DECISIO N UNDOUBTEDLY PUTS A PARTY IN QUANDARY. SECTION 250(6 ) EXPRESSLY EMBODIES THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTIC E AND SUCH A PROVISION IS CLEARLY MANDATORY IN NATURE. TH E IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) CA NNOT, THEREFORE, BE SUSTAINED. REGARDING THE DECISIONS OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MULTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD.'S CASE (SUPRA) CITED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIN D THAT THE SAID DECISION IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE. SECTI ON 254 REFERRING TO THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL CONFERS PLE NARY JURISDICTION ON THE TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF PASSI NG ORDERS UNDER SECTION 254(1). THERE IS NO SUCH EXPRE SS STIPULATION IN SECTION 254 AS CONTAINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) RELATING TO THE ORDERS OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, RELIANCE PLAC ED BY THE CIT(A) ON MULTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD.'S CASE (SUP RA) IS ENTIRELY MISPLACED. SIMILARLY, THE CASE OF ESTATE O F LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (SUPRA) CITED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND DOES NOT SUPPORT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A). 4. FOR THE REASONS INDICATED ABOVE, WE HEREBY SET A SIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE CIT (A) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AFT ER ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AHD BENCH IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT TEHMISIS BIOSYN LTD VS. JCIT (SUPRA ), WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.10.2009 PASSED BY THE CIT(A ), SHIMLA AND DIRECT 4 THE CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OF ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASS ESSEE AFRESH ON MERITS AFTER ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE M ATTER. 7. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, ALL THE APPEALS ARE AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 5 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 5TH MARCH, 2012 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR