S K MINERAL HANDLING PVT LTD.,KEONJHAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 239/CTK/2017Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 January 2018AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order and denied the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was directed against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee's AR requested an adjournment, which was rejected. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proper reasons.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, thus violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri A.P.Mishra, AR
For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

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.

2.

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.”

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

Contra, ld D.R. supported the orders of the CIT(A).

3 ITA No .239/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 201 3

6.

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.

7.

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

8.

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

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →