Shri Sanjeev Sahi, Indore V. The I.T.O., Indore

ITA 95/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2888 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.95/IND/2010 AY: 2006-07 SANJEEV SAHI PAN AKSPS 7050 E C/O BAFNA JAIN & CO., 111, STARLIT TOWER, 29, Y.N. ROAD, INDORE ..APPELLANT V/S. ITO-3(1), INDORE ..RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJESH MEHTA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A)- I, INDORE, DATED 11.11.2009 ON THE GROUND THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO TH E ASSESSEE AND FURTHER IN CONFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE LD. ASSESS ING OFFICER BY PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE INFORMATION OBTAINED U/S 133(6) O F THE ACT AND OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND FURTHER IN 2 CONFIRMING THE COMMISSION PER TRIP ESTIMATED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, I HAVE HEARD SHRI RAJESH MEHTA, LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE AND SMT. APARNA KARAN, LD. SR. DR. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ADEQUAT E OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY FURTHER CLAIMING TH AT IF OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN, THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO SUBSTANTIAT E ITS CLAIM. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED OR DER BY CONTENDING THAT SUFFICIENT TIME WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE A ND THE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT AVAILED. THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS ARGUED T O BE JUSTIFIED. 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERIT S OF THE CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR 30.10.2009 AND T HE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE OFFICE ON 29.10.2009 WITH A R EQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THE PROCEEDINGS WERE ADJOURNED TO 1 0.11.2009. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COMMUNICATION, THE APPEAL WAS DE CIDED ON MERITS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THAT HE IS IN A POSI TION TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM, THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO PERSON S HOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD, CONSEQUENTLY, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPL E OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THIS FILE IS REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE L D. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO ME NTION HERE THAT 3 DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WITH FURTHER LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM, BE PRO VIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. FINALLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 19.5.2010. SD (JOGINDER SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19.5.2010 !VYAS! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE