M/s. Kortek Electronics (India) Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 977/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3208 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KR SHARMA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 977/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ASSESSEE BY : NONE. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. ANIL KR. SHARMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 14.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.11.2017 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M : 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)VIII, NEW DELHI, DATED 27.10.201 4 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. LD. CIT (A) NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT ON 2 DATES OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER, THE NOTICES RETURN WITH REMARKS LEFT. AGAIN ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTA TIVE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NO TIFYING THE DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST. KORTEK ELECTRONICS (INDIA) LTD. 800, 8 TH FLOOR, SAHYOG BUILDING NEW DELHI VS D CIT CIRCLE-14(1) NEW DELHI GIR/PAN: AABCK5593N / (APPELLANT) /(RESPONDENT) 2 ITA NO. 977/DEL/2016 4. AFTER HEARING OF LD. DR, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE MAT TER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF CIT (A). 5. LD. AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 13,39,004/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION ON UPS. 6. ACCORDING TO SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX, LD. CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO PASS REASONED ORDER ON MERITS EVEN ASSE SSEE MAY NOT APPEAR BEFORE HIM. THE IMPUGNED ORDER DOES NOT SHOW IF ANY NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARIN G OF APPEAL. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED WITHOUT SERVING THE NOTICE UPON THE ASSESSEE. 7. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE, ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIS FILE WITH DIRECTI ON TO RE-DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS BY GIVING REAS ONS FOR DECISION IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. LD. CIT(A) SHALL ALSO SERVE THE NOTICE UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL AND SHALL GIVE REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.11.2017. SD/- SD/- (L. P. SAHU) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 14.11.2017 @M!T