Pioneer Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 929/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4290 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARMIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ITA NO. 929/DEL/11 ASSTT. YR: 2002-03 PIONEER BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICE R, 212, JAINA TOWER-1, WARD 14(2), NEW DELHI. DISTT. CENTRE, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI. PAN/ GIR NO.AACCP3217F ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARMIT SINGH FCA ASSESSEE BY : MS. Y. KAKKAR SR. DR O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M: : THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST CIT(A)S ORDER D ATED 15-12-2010 RELATING TO A.Y. 2002-03. 2. IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISE D SEVERAL GROUNDS TO CHALLENGE THE EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 30 LACS MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT I NITIALLY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS WERE MADE BUT IN THE LAST LEARNED CIT( A) DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: ON 08-9-2010, LD. AR FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND REQUESTED FOR 1 OR 2 WEEKS TIME AN D THE CASE 2 WAS ADJOURNED FOR 01-10-2010. ON 01-10-2010 AGAIN A N ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS SUBMITT ED ON THE GROUND THAT THE COUNSEL RESPONSIBLE FOR HEARING IS ENGAGED IN TREATMENT OF HIS FATHER, 4 TH WEEK OF THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2010 REQUEST WAS ACCEPTED AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 25-10- 2010. ON 25-10-2010 ANOTHER APPLICATION WAS SUBMITT ED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 2-11-2010. O N 2-11- 2010 AGAIN AN APPLICATION WAS FILED FOR ADJOURNMENT THAT REQUIRED DETAILS ARE IN THE PROCESS OF COLLECTION. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 15-11-2010. A FRESH NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 18-11- 2010 TO THE APPELLANT FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING O N 29-11-2010. BUT NEITHER ANYBODY ATTENDED ON 29-11-2010 NOR REQU EST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. FOURTH NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT ON 07-12-2010 FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 15-12- 2010. BUT NONE ATTENDED. 3.1. LEARNED COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT HIS FATHER WAS A ILING FROM CANCER AND ULTIMATELY EXPIRED AFTER PROLONGED TREATMENT. THE H EARINGS COULD NOT BE ATTENDED AS THE COUNSEL WAS AFFECTED BY THESE CIRCU MSTANCES, WHICH WERE BEYOND HIS CONTROL. LEARNED COUNSEL APOLOGIZED FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE AND CONTENDS THAT THE EX PARTE ORDER WILL RESULT IN GRE AT HARDSHIP TO ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LEARNED COUNSEL HAS EXPRESSED HIS APOLOGY FOR NON- COMPLIANCE OF HEARINGS CAUSED BY THE UNFORTUNATE CI RCUMSTANCES OF HIS FATHERS CRITICAL SICKNESS. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SUFFER FOR SUCH EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. IN OUR VIEW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE WOULD BE SERVED IF THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN A CHANCE OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON MERITS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN TO COMPLY WITH CIT(A)S NOTICE. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASI DE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND 3 RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18-04-2011. SD/- SD/- ( B.C. MEENA ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18-04-2011. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR