Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM
The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 24.1.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2006-07. The assessee has also filed an Application dated 12.4.2017 stating therein that the impugned order is the order dated 24.1.2014 which was passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi, without hearing the assessee. It was further mentioned therein that Ld. CIT(A) had nowhere mentioned in the body of the appellate order that she had issued the notice(es) of hearing to the assessee and the assessee had not made compliance to such notices issued by her. It was further stated that the assessee has now realized that the Grounds of Appeal (which were raised by it at the time of filing of appeal on prescribed Form No. 36), were not proper and hence needs revision/modification. Accordingly, the assessee has filed the revised grounds of appeal which read as under:-
1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has denied natural justice to the assessee, by not allowing proper opportunity of hearing.
2. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the assessee’s
appeal, without ensuring as to whether the assessee had been served with any notice of hearing or not (if at all any notice of hearing was issued by her and dispatched by her office).
That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.
50,93,650/- (representing the total amount) of Share
Application Money received by the assessee from 14 parties) which was made by the AO vide order dated
30.12.2011 passed u/s. 143(3)/263.
The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.
3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the assessee’s appeal, without ensuring as to whether the assesee had been served with any notice of hearing or not. He further stated that assessee was not allowed proper opportunity of hearing by the Ld. CIT(A), hence, he requested that assessee may be granted opportunity to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate his case. He undertakes to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and ensured the Bench that assessee or his Counsel may not take any unnecessary adjournment, if the issue in dispute is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh.
On the contrary, Ld. DR strongly opposed the request of the assessee’s counsel and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to prosecute its appeal, but assessee failed to avail the same. Hence, he requested that the appeal of the Assessee may be dismissed.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunity to the assessee for substantiating the claim before him. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing herewith the relevant para no. 4 at page no. 5 of the impugned order:-
“4. During appellant proceedings, the first notice was issued to the appellant on 17.12.2012 fixing the case for hearing on 13.02.2013. The notice was sent by speed post at the address given in the appeal memo. There was no compliance by the appellant. Again a fresh notice was issued on 5.9.2013 fixing the case for hearing on 16.9.2013. But the result was that none on behalf of the appellant attended the hearing nor any request for adjournment was filed. On 12.11.2013, a notice was issued to the appellant which was received by Smt. Prem
Lata Mishra, Counsel of the Assessee calling for hearing on 22.11.2013. On 22.11.2013, an application was filed by the appellant seeking adjournment. But again the appellant made to compliance. Again a fresh notice was issued to the appellant on 09.01.2014 fixing the case for hearing on 20.1.2014. But no one attended. It is seen that the appellant is in the habit of non compliance to notices issued. In view therefore, I am deciding the matter ex-parte on the basis of document on record and on merit.”
5.1 After going through the aforesaid findings of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in dispute exparte. In the interest of justice the issue in dispute requires thorough investigation and examination at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we set aside the issue in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to him to decide the same afresh under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
5.2 Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances as explained above and the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee, the assessee remained non-cooperative. We put a question to the Ld. Counsel of the assessee for awarding the cost on the assesse on account of non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A) and he agreed to pay the cost. Accordingly, we award Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) against the assessee which is to be paid by the assessee to the Department and produce the copy receipt/ challan to the Ld. CIT(A) and appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 20.07.2017 at 10.00 AM and will remain cooperative in the proceedings and not to take unnecessary adjournment. Ld. CIT\(A) is also directed to decide the issue in dispute afresh, as per law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Open Court on this 18-04-2017.