M/S. IBD SPACE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL

आदेश /O R D E R

PER BENCH

These appeal have been filed by the assessee against the

consolidated order of the learned CIT(A)-3, Bhopal, dated 11.1.2017

in First Appeal Nos. CIT(A)-e/BPL/IT-303 to 307/2015-16 for the

assessment year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 1

IBD Space Infrastructure IT(SS)A Nos.69 to 72 & 209/Ind/2017 2. Since identical issues are involved in these appeals, we

propose to decide these appeals by this consolidated order for the

sake of convenience.

appeals, are that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was

not justified in dismissing the appeals of the assessee-appellant

without affording proper and effective opportunity of being heard as

also in not adjudicating the appeals on merits.

operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

to as ‘Act’) was carried out at the business premises of the assessee

as well as at the premises of other concerns/business associated on

30.11.2012 during which various books of accounts, loose papers,

etc. were seized and impounded from these premises. The assessee-

appellant is a private limited company and has shown income from

business of real estate, construction and development of all types of

land and housing colony, etc. Notices u/s 153A of the Act were

issued for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 in response to

which the assessee filed returns of income. After detailed discussion

IBD Space Infrastructure IT(SS)A Nos.69 to 72 & 209/Ind/2017 as made in the assessment orders, the Assessing Officer found that

there was undisclosed income was detected during the course of

assessment. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after rejecting the

books of accounts, added the undisclosed income to the total

income of the assessee for all the assessment years, under

consideration, as discussed in the assessment orders.

Officer in all these assessment years, the assessee-appellant

preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) issued various notices

for hearing to the assessee but the assessee did not comply with the

same and as such the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Now the assessee is

in appeals before the Tribunal.

because of the reasons beyond its control, the assessee could not

comply with the notices of hearing issued by the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals). He, therefore, humbly prayed that the

assessee-appellant may kindly be granted one more opportunity to

IBD Space Infrastructure IT(SS)A Nos.69 to 72 & 209/Ind/2017 represent its case before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

On the other hand, the learned DR strongly opposed the request of

the assessee on the ground that sufficient opportunity has already

been provided to the assessee and as such, the assessee-appellant

has no case for grant of another opportunity of hearing.

considered the orders of the authorities below. We find that the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has given inasmuch as 6

opportunities to the assessee-appellant to represent its case but the

assessee utterly failed to avail the same. We also note that the

assessee-appellant has made request for adjournment on two

occasions but both the applications for adjournment were filed after

the date of hearing. In such a scenario, the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals) was left with no choice but to proceed to

decide the appeals. Accordingly, the appeals were decided and after

considering the facts and the material available on record, the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the same.

However, it is a well settled principle of natural justice that no-body

should be condemned unheard. Principle of natural requires that

IBD Space Infrastructure IT(SS)A Nos.69 to 72 & 209/Ind/2017 sufficient opportunity of being heard should be provided to the

assessee before deciding the issue against it. We are, therefore, of

the considered opinion that since the Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) has decided the matter without hearing the assessees in

violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play, these

appeals need to be restored to his file for deciding the same after

providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessees. We,

therefore, following the principle of natural justice and equity,

restore these appeals to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) with the direction to provide the assessee-appellant one

more opportunity of being heard and then to decide the appeals in

accordance with law. At the same time, we also direct the assessee-

appellant to remain present on the date of hearing before the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and not to seek unnecessary

adjournment. We direct accordingly.

learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the directions given

above, other grounds of the assessee on merit become academic in

nature and we are not adjudicating them.

IBD Space Infrastructure IT(SS)A Nos.69 to 72 & 209/Ind/2017 9. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

The order has been pronounced in open Court on 09th May,

2017.

Sd/- sd/-

लेखा सद�य �या�यक सद�य (O.P.Meena) (C.M. Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member

May 09, 2017

Dn/