ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI V. DELIGHT RESORTS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

MA 151/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves two Miscellaneous Applications (M.A. Nos. 150 & 151/Del/2023) filed by the Income Tax Department against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) under section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These applications were related to the assessment years 2011-12 concerning Dependable Transport P.Ltd. and Delight Resorts P.Ltd. The Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision which had restored the cases to the file of the CIT(A) on grounds that the CIT(A) had violated the principles of natural justice by not considering the complete facts and passing ex-parte orders. The Tribunal, in its decision, emphasized that the view taken was based on comprehensive considerations and thus, could not be termed as a 'mistake apparent from the record' under section 254(2) of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 38131 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKUR AGGARWAL; MUSKAN GOEL
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “ BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA M.A.No.150/Del/2023 [In ITA No.1046/Del/2020] [Assessment Year : 2011 ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi. APPELLANT M.A.No. 151/Del/2023 [In IT [Assessment Year : 201 ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi. APPELLANT Appellant by Respondent by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA Both the captioned section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] by Revenue respective different orders, both dated 21.10.2022 passed by the Tribunal under section 254(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & BHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No.150/Del/2023 [In ITA No.1046/Del/2020] [Assessment Year : 2011-12] v s Dependable Transport P.Ltd., 222, 2nd Floor, Hemkunt Chamber, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. PAN-AACCD0468Q RESPONDENT M.A.No. 151/Del/2023 [In ITA No. 1047/Del/2020] [Assessment Year : 2011-12] vs Delight Resorts P.Ltd., Plot No.127A, Shop No.8, Shakti Khand Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201014. PAN-AACCD3031D RESPONDENT Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr.DR Respondent by Shri Ankur Aggarwal, CA & Ms. Muskan Goel, Adv. Date of Hearing 08.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement 08.11.2024 ORDER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : captioned Miscellaneous Applications have been of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] by Revenue different orders, both dated 21.10.2022 passed by the Tribunal under section 254(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12 BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Dependable Transport P.Ltd., Floor, Hemkunt Chamber, 89, Nehru Place, Plot No.127A, Shop No.8, Shakti Khand-I, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, 201014. Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr.DR Shri Ankur Aggarwal, CA & have been filed under of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] by Revenue against the different orders, both dated 21.10.2022 passed by the Tribunal 12. The cause of action mentioned in both the MAs were stated to be identical and therefore, a common order is being pa 2. As per the respective MAs, the Revenue has challenged the appellate orders passed by the wherein the issue raised before the Tribunal was restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. 3. By way of the respective orders, the orders passed by Ld.CIT(A) opined by ITAT. It was observed by the ITAT tha filed by the assessee remained unnoticed and an Ld.CIT(A) without taking notice of the complete facts. 4. The order passed by ITAT u/s 254(1) of the Act is apparently, founded on the principles of natural justice and the view taken multiple factors. It is incomprehensible to brand such view Tribunal as ‘mistake apparent from the record’ as contemplated u/s 254(2) of the Act. Hence, there is no substance in the 5. In the result, both M.A Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.Nos.150 & 151/Del/2023 of action mentioned in both the MAs were stated to be identical and therefore, a common order is being passed for both the M.As. As per the respective MAs, the Revenue has challenged the passed by the Tribunal under section 254(1) of the Act n the issue raised before the Tribunal was restored to the file of e grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. By way of the respective orders, the Tribunal had set aside the orders passed by Ld.CIT(A) on the grounds of lack of proper opportunity t was observed by the ITAT that the adjournment application d by the assessee remained unnoticed and an ex-parte order was passed by Ld.CIT(A) without taking notice of the complete facts. The order passed by ITAT u/s 254(1) of the Act is apparently, founded on natural justice and the view taken involve consideration of s. It is incomprehensible to brand such view Tribunal as ‘mistake apparent from the record’ as contemplated u/s 254(2) of the Act. Hence, there is no substance in the captioned M.As. M.As filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08th November, 202 Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.Nos.150 & 151/Del/2023 Page | 2 of action mentioned in both the MAs were stated to be identical and therefore, As per the respective MAs, the Revenue has challenged the respective under section 254(1) of the Act n the issue raised before the Tribunal was restored to the file of e grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. set aside the ex-parte proper opportunity as adjournment application order was passed by The order passed by ITAT u/s 254(1) of the Act is apparently, founded on consideration of s. It is incomprehensible to brand such view taken by the Tribunal as ‘mistake apparent from the record’ as contemplated u/s 254(2) of dismissed. , 2024. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT M.A.Nos.150 & 151/Del/2023 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI M.A.Nos.150 & 151/Del/2023 Page | 3 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "