M/s. Twenty First Century Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITSSA 9/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0543 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 10-12-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GUNJAN P RASAD
• Keywords: Block assessment

Judgement Text

IT(SS) NO.09/DEL/2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 09/DEL/2013 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1990 TO 20.7.2000 M/S TWENTY FIRST CENTURY MEDIA PVT. LTD., VS ACIT, G-5, IIND FLOOR, HAUZ KHAS MARKET, CIRCLE 16( 1), NEW DELHI-110016 NEW DELHI. (PAN: AAACT 1064G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI ANIL BHALLA, C A RESPONDENT BY: SHRI GUNJAN PRASA D, CIT DR O R D E R PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, J.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XIX, NEW DELHI DATED 16.03.2012 IN APPEAL N O. 82/2006-07 FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD RECKONING FROM 1.4.1990 TO 20.7.2000. 2. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS A GRIEVANCE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS SUBMISSIONS AND CASE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED EX PARTE WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE. LD. AR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED GROUND NO. 1 IN THIS REGARD WHICH MAY KINDLY BE ADJUDICATED FIRST. IT(SS) NO.09/DEL/2013 2 3. LD. DR REPLIED THAT GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE TAKEN UP FOR ADJUDICATION FIRST AND DEPARTMENT HAD NO SERIOUS OB JECTION TO THAT. 4. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS A GRIEVANCE ON ACCOUN T OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED AD EQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE C IT(A) AND CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED EX PARTE. 5. APROPOS GROUND NO.1, WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON R ECORD, INTER ALIA IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. LD. AR DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS OPERATIVE PART OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS BEFORE THE CIT(A) W HICH WERE NOT DECIDED PROPERLY AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DECIDED IN A CRYPTIC AND SLIPSHOD MANNER WITHOUT AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE. LD. AR FURTHER PRAYED THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY H AS NOT PASSED A PROPER ORDER, THEREFORE, THE CASE MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FIL E OF CIT(A) FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961. 6. LD. DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DECID ED THE APPEAL IN A VERY BRIEF MANNER WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS FOR UPHO LDING THE ACTION OF THE AO, THEREFORE, IF IT IS FOUND JUST AND PROPER, THE DEPA RTMENT HAS NO SERIOUS OBJECTION TOWARDS REMITTANCE OF THE CASE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A ) FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION. IT(SS) NO.09/DEL/2013 3 7. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE EX PARTE WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS TO SUPPORT THE ACTION OF THE AO. FROM FORM NO. 35 AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE RAIS ED NINE GROUNDS BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE EX PARTE IN A SINGLE LINE OPERATIVE CONCLUSION AND ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER:- THE ABOVE ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF TH E FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ADDITIONS WERE RIGHTLY MADE BY THE AO. 8. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED A VERY CRYPTIC AND SLIPSHOD ORDER EX PARTE W ITHOUT AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER, WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REAS ONING AND FINDING WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESS EE RAISED NINE GROUNDS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION BY THE CIT(A) ON THESE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IF THE CASE IS RESTORED BACK T O THE FILE OF THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE FIRST APPEAL. THUS, GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE BY RESTORIN G THE ENTIRE FIRST APPEAL TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION AFTER AF FORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT(SS) NO.09/DEL/2013 4 9. SINCE BY THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, WE HAVE RESTORED FIRST APPEAL TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, THEREFORE, W E ARE NOT EXPRESSING ANY VIEW ON THE OTHER GROUNDS PERTAINING TO THE MERITS OF TH E CASE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.1.2014. SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (CHANDRAMOHAN GAR G) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 13TH JANUARY 2015 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER AS STT. REGISTRAR