Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

Mohan Sambhaji Jagthap, 2995, Sector 23, Gurgaon. Vs ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi.
January, 30th 2015
ITA 1827 to 1830/Del/2013
Asstt.Years: 2007-08, 02-03, 06-07, 05-06

                IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                     DELHI BENCHES `E' NEW DELHI

        BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT
                           AND
        SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

     ITA NO. 1827, ITA 1828, 1829, 1830/DEL/2013
  ASSTT. YEARS: 2007-08, 2002-03, 2006-07, 2005-06

Mohan Sambhaji Jagthap,         vs     ACIT,
2995, Sector 23,                       Central Circle-13,
Gurgaon.                               New Delhi.
(PAN: ACJPJ3988R)
 (Appellant)                       (Respondent)
             Appellant by: Shri Mukesh Rana, Adv.
         Respondent by: Shri Gunjan Prashad, CIT DR

                                O R D E R

PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, J.M.

        These appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the

separate orders of the CIT(A)-I, New Delhi all dated 7.1.2013 in Appeal No.

47/11-12, 45/11-12, 44/11-12 and 43/11-12 for AY 2002-03, 2005-06,

2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted

that ground no.2 of the assessee in all four appeals may kindly be taken up

first. Ld. DR agreed to that. Ground no. 2 of the assessee in all four appeals

reads as under:-


              "2. That the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is against
         the principles of natural justice."

                                                                             1
ITA 1827 to 1830/Del/2013
Asstt.Years: 2007-08, 02-03, 06-07, 05-06






2.      Apropos ground no.2, we have heard arguments of both the sides and

carefully perused the relevant material placed on record. Ld. Counsel of the

assessee has drawn our attention towards para 2 of the assessment order

and submitted that the AO issued several notices fixing the date of hearing

after a few days but the AO has not drawn any conclusion when despite due

service of notice, neither the assessee nor his representative remained

absent during the assessment proceedings. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has

further drawn our attention towards impugned order of the CIT(A) para 9

and submitted that the assessee raised ground no. 9 before the first

appellate authority alleging that the order passed by the AO was against the

principles of natural justice but the CIT(A) did not pay any heed to ground

no. 9 of the assessee and the CIT(A) dismissed ground no. 9 without any

specific adjudication by holding that the same is general/consequential in

nature and does not require any specific adjudication.


3.      Ld. DR contended that if assessee is not cooperating during the

assessment proceedings, then the AO has no alternative but to complete

proceedings ex parte, in time barred cases. However, ld. DR fairly accepted

that if it is found just and proper, the department has no serious objection if

all the appeals are remitted back to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication.




                                                                                2
ITA 1827 to 1830/Del/2013
Asstt.Years: 2007-08, 02-03, 06-07, 05-06

4.      In view of above submissions of both the sides and observation of the

AO in para 2 of the assessment order as noted and submitted before us

hereinabove and approach of the CIT(A) about ground no. 9 of the assessee,

we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was not provided due

opportunity of hearing before the authorities below and we have no

hesitation to hold that this is a clear violation of principles of natural justice

on the part of revenue authorities. Thus, we are of the considered opinion

that the assessment proceedings in all four appeals deserve to be restored

back to the file of AO for a fresh de novo adjudication. Therefore, impugned

orders as well as assessment orders in all these four cases are set aside and

these cases are restored to the file of AO for a fresh de novo adjudication

after affording due opportunity of hearing for the assessee. The assessee is

also directed to cooperate with the AO during assessment proceedings.

Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the assessee in all four appeals is allowed.









5.      Since by the earlier part of this order, we have restored all four cases

to the file of AO for a fresh de novo reassessment, therefore, other grounds

of the assessee do not survive for adjudication by this Tribunal. Finally, all

four appeals of the assessee are deemed to be allowed for statistical

purposes.



                                                                                3
ITA 1827 to 1830/Del/2013
Asstt.Years: 2007-08, 02-03, 06-07, 05-06




         Order pronounced in the open court on 27.01.2015.

         Sd/-                                    Sd/-

  (G.D. AGRAWAL)                            (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG)
  VICE PRESIDENT                              JUDICIAL MEMBER

DT. 27th January, 2015
`GS'


Copy forwarded to:-

    1.   Appellant
    2.   Respondent
    3.   C.I.T.(A)
    4.   C.I.T. 5. DR
                                                 By Order



                                             Asstt. Registrar




                                                                  4

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting