Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the
CIT(A)- Cuttack dated 20.3.2017 for the assessment year 2012-2013.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1) For that the Ld. CIT(A) is wholly unjustified in confirming the disallowance of an amount of Rs.34,01,046/- U/s-14(A). The said Section 14(A) is not applicable to the facts of the appellant. The disallowance is neither based on any facts nor permitted in the eye of law and hence needs to be deleted in full.
2) For that the CIT(A) erred in law in holding that the donation paid for Rs.3,68,557/-was inadmissible on the facts and
2 ITA No .239/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 201 3
circumstances of the case. Hence, the amount needs to be allowed in full.
3) For that the CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the disallowance for the claim of Rs.5,06,279/- paid by the appellant towards provident fund dues. The claim of EPF deposit needs to be allowed in full.
4) For that the Ld. CIT (A) was not justify in disposing the appeal ex-party without offering proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Hence, the order passed without opportunity needs to be set aside for the shake of natural justice.
5) For that any other grounds shall be pressed on or before the date of hearing.”
At the time of hearing, ld A.R. of the assessee filed an adjournment
petition to adjourn the matter on the ground that the assessee has
executed a vakalatanama on 29.1.2018 in favour of the conducting
counsel and, accordingly, the paper book has been filed on 29.1.2018.
However, the ld A.R. did not press the adjournment petition. Therefore,
we reject the adjournment petition filed by the ld A.R. of the assessee
and proceed to adjudicate the appeal after hearing the ld representatives
of parties and on the basis of material available on record.
Before us, ld A.R. of the assessee relied on the grounds of appeal
and submitted that CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal exparte
without assigning proper reasons and passed a non-speaking order and
prayed for an opportunity to substantiate its case before the appellate
authority.
Contra, ld D.R. supported the orders of the CIT(A).
3 ITA No .239/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 201 3
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the order of
the CIT(A). We find that the CIT(A) made an observation that there was
no compliance by the assessee although various opportunities were
provided to the assessee. We are of the opinion that there may be
various reasons for the assessee in non-compliance but as prayed before
us and considering the principle of natural justice, we take support on our
view on the judicial decision of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case
of Radhika Charan Banerjee v Sambalpur Municipality, AIR 1979 Orissa
69, wherein, it has been held that right of appeal wherever conferred
includes a right of being afforded opportunity of being heard irrespective
of language conferring such right that is a part and parcel of principles of
natural justice. Where an authority is required to act in a quasi-judicial
capacity, it is imperative to give appellant an adequate opportunity of
being heard before deciding the appeal. The aim of the rule of natural
justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and denial of principles of audi
alteram partem results into such miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, we,
in order to impart substantial justice to the assessee, restore the appeal
back to the file of the Learned CIT(A) to adjudicate on merits after
providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the
assessee shall also co-operate by submitting the documents for disposal
of the appeal.
Since we have remitted the matter to the file of the CIT (A) for
deciding afresh, other grounds raised in the appeal are not heard.
4 ITA No .239/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 201 3
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced on 31/01/2018. Sd/- sd/- (N.S Saini) (Pavan Kumar Gadale) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER Cuttack; Dated 31 /01/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : S.K.Mineral Handling Pvt Ltd., Near New Bus Stand, Kalinga Road, Barbil, Keonjhar 2. The Respondent. JCIT, Range-1, Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)- Cuttack 4. Pr.CIT- Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack BY ORDER, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack