Om Parkash Sangwan, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 973/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3182 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH - SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 973/DEL/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 OM PRAKASH SANGWAN 63, RAMA ROAD NEW DELHI 110 015 PAN AAZPS5602F VS. ITO WARD-50(2) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 17, NEW DELHI DATED 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED LARGE N UMBER OF DATE OF HEARING IN WHICH THERE WERE NO COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE PASSED THE EX PARTE ORD ER U/S 144 / 147 OF THE I.T. ACT BY DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC AND ADDITION ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ARVIND KUMAR, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY: MS. BADOBANI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 24/05/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25/05/2017 ITA NO. 973/DEL/2017 OM PRAKASH SANGWAN VS. ITO PAGE 2 OF 4 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND COMPUTED THE INCOME AT RS. 3,25,800/-. THE POSITION IS SIMILAR BEFORE LD. CIT( A) BECAUSE NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ON ANY DATES OF HEARING. LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DIS MISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 3. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, I AM OF THE VIE W THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD. CI T(A). LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ON THE SAME ISSUE OF DE DUCTION U/S 80IC THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 AND 2010-11 THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE MATTER BAC K TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR PASSING THE ORDER AFRESH HOLDING THA T ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM APPEARING BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A). COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2016 IS PLACED ON RECORD. HOWEVER LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE WAS NOT AB LE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHAT WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFO RE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. HE HAS MERELY CONTENDED THAT THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HOWEVER FOR TH E PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT, NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN AGAINST HIM. L D. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE MATTER MAY BE ITA NO. 973/DEL/2017 OM PRAKASH SANGWAN VS. ITO PAGE 3 OF 4 REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR DECISIO N AFRESH. LD. DR OBJECTED THE CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW AND SUBMIT THAT IN CASE THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE L D. CIT(A) THAT COST MAY BE IMPOSED UPON ASSESSEE. 4. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT O F THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND THE FACT THAT IN EA RLIER YEARS THE MATTER WAS REMANDED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) BY TH E TRIBUNAL HOWEVER, ON THE REASON THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CA USE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND THAT OTHER APPEAL I S PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, MAY BE REASON FOR RESTORING THE MATT ER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER SUBJECT TO COST BECAUSE THE ASSESSE E HAS BEEN PROLONGING THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS DELIBERATELY . CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A) DELIBERATELY AND T HAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN DETAILED REASON FOR DECISION IN THE MATTER, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE A PPEAL OF ASSESSEE TO HIS FILE WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE BY GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, SUBJECT TO COST OF RS. 5,000/- WHICH ASSESSEE SHALL PAY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF THE OR DER. IT IS ITA NO. 973/DEL/2017 OM PRAKASH SANGWAN VS. ITO PAGE 4 OF 4 CLARIFIED IN CASE THE COST IS NOT PAID, REVENUE IS AT LIBERTY TO RECOVER THE COST FROM THE ASSESSEE AS ARREAR OF TAX. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES SUBJECT TO COST AS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- ( BHAVNESH SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25/05/2017 *VEENA* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. PRINCIPAL CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR