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
|