Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC-FRIDAY-C”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
Date of Hearing: 24.06.2016 Date of Order : 01-07-2016
ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM
This appeal is filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 30.6.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2010-11.
The facts narrated by the Revenue Authorities are not disputed by both the parties, therefore, no need to repeat here for the sake of convenience.
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed an exparte order without hearing the assessee which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. He further stated that the Tribunal on exactly similar grounds in assessee’s own case for the asstt years 2004-05 to 2009-10 vide its order dated 30.10.2015 passed in to 4970/Del/2014 has set aside and restored back the Appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for passing a speaking order and grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He filed the copy of the Tribunal’s order dated 30.10.2015 for ready reference. Accordingly, he requested that the similar order may please be passed in this Appeal also.
On the request of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, Ld. DR did not raise any serious objection.
I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with me, especially the impugned order which has been decided against the assessee exparte without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. I find considerable cogency in the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee that on exactly similar issue, the Appeal has been set aside and restored back by the ITAT in assessee’s own case for the asstt years 2004-05 to 2009-10 vide its order dated 30.10.2015 passed in to 4970/Del/2014 for passing a speaking order and give adequate opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The relevant portion of the Tribunal’s order is reproduced as under:-
“4.1. The decision cannot be upheld as it is based on an incorrect appreciation of the relevant provisions of the statute. Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 sets out the procedure which the CIT(A) is required to follow in appeal. For the purposes of the present proceedings, it is appropriate to set out Section 250(6) of the Act:-
"(1)…………………………………………………
(2) ………………………………………………… (3) ………………………………………………… (4) ………………………………………………… (5) …………………………………………………
(6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.
(6A) …………………………………………………" 3
4.1 A perusal of the orders under challenge shows that while deciding the appeals, the Ld. CIT(A) has not followed these mandatory provisions. While deciding the issues the CIT(A) is first supposed to set out the points for determination and thereafter the reasons for the conclusions drawn have to be brought on record. In the absence of this requisite exercise the order cannot be upheld. In view of the above the impugned orders in each of these appeals are set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) with the direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. Needless to say that a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be provided to the assessee. The said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the presence of the parties.
5.1 Respectfully following the Coordinate Bench decision, as aforesaid, the present Appeal is set aside and restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. Needless to say that assessee should granted reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 01-07-2016.