Ram Bahadur Khurania, Kaithal V. Tax Recovery Officer, Karnal

ITSSA 38/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3395 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAVIN CHANDRA
• Assessee Lawyers: PERMIL GOEL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.38/DEL./2014 (BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1987 TO 06.06.1997) SHRI RAM BAHADUR KHURANIA, VS. CIT, C/O PERMIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, KARNAL. AMBALA ROAD, KAITHAL. (PAN : ADEPB8073H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PERMIL GOEL, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI NAVIN CHANDRA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 03.08.2017 DATE OF ORDER : 08.08.2017 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, SHRI RAM BAHADUR KHURANIA (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE), BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGH T TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.01.2014 PASSED BY THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), KARNAL, FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.06.1987 TO 06.06.1997 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT PASSING SPEAKING ORDER, AS TO THE DATE FROM WHICH THE INTEREST IS TO BE CHARGE D U/S 220 (2) OF THE ACT (BEFORE AMENDMENT W.E.F. 1.4.201 4). ITA NO.38/DEL./2014 2 2. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT PASSING SPEAKING ORDER ON CAN INTEREST U/S 220 (2) BE CHARGED BY ISSUING NOTI CE U/S 154 FOR PERIOD BETWEEN DEMAND ORIGINALLY MADE & FINALLY WORKED OUT, DUE TO ITAT ORDER. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ON FAILURE OF THE ASSESSE E TO PAY A DEMAND OF RS.15,14,186/- FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.06.1987 TO 0 6.06.1997 WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD, ORDER UNDER SECTION 220(2) OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) WAS PASSED. THEREAFTER, AO RAISED DEMAND ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,97,390/- B Y PASSING ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT ON THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 220(2) OF TH E ACT FOR LATE PAYMENT OF THE TAXES. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A) BY WAY OF FILING AN APPEAL WHO HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT . 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UP ON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. FROM THE PERUSAL OF PARA 3.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORD ER, IT IS APPARENTLY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED T HE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 220 (2) OF THE ACT ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE DEMAND IN THIS CASE WAS RAISED W.E.F. 2009 ON GIVIN G APPEAL EFFECT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY ITAT DATED 07.11.2008 AND THE INTER EST WAS CHARGED BY ITA NO.38/DEL./2014 3 THE TRO ON FRACTION OF MONTH BASIS WHICH IS A DEBAT ABLE ISSUE. ALL THESE CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) BY FILING REJOINDER DULY REPRODUCED BY LD. CIT (A) IN PARA 3.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 6. HOWEVER, CIT (A) WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE CONTRO VERSY AT HAND DIRECTED THE TRO, TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CONTENTIONS RAISED, VERIF IED THE CALCULATIONS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND I NTIMATE THE STATUS TO THE APPELLANT AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSE. 7. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED A C RYPTIC ORDER WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND RAISED BEFORE HIM AND THIS BENCH HAS NO OPTION EXCEPT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER TO LD. CIT (A) TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE FILE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT (A) AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION OVER HERE THAT THIS IS SECOND ROUND OF LITI GATION, WHICH NEEDS LOGICAL CONCLUSION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 8 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 TS ITA NO.38/DEL./2014 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), KARNAL. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.