Mrs. Manisha Sharma, Ludhiana v. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 1231/CHANDI/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 123121514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AJSPS9201L
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 1231/CHANDI/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s)
Appellant Mrs. Manisha Sharma, Ludhiana
Respondent ITO, Ludhiana
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-12-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 28-12-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 28-12-2011
Next Hearing Date 28-12-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 28-10-2010
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1231/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 MRS MANISHA SHARMA VS THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROP. M/S JANNA BEAUTY & WARD VII (4) HEALTH WORLD LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. AJSPS 9201 L APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI DATE OF HEARING : 28.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.12.2011 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A)-II LUDHIANA DATED 18.8.2010 RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT LD. CIT(A)-II LUDHIANA HAS ERROR IN LAW IN DISMISSING IN DEFAULT THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT B Y PASSING ORDER BEFORE THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL & THUS VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURA L JUSTICE. 2 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-II LUDHIANA HAS ERROR IN LAW IN N OT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 8 84 407/- 3. AS REGARD THE GROUND NO.1 WE OBSERVE THAT VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WIT HOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN O UR VIEW THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF N ON PERSECUTION IS ENTIRELY ERRONEOUS AND MISCONCEIVED. THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) PROVIDES THAT THE APPELLATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) ARE TO STATE THE POINTS ARISING IN THE APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY THEREON AND T HE REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN VIOLATION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT COULD NOT THEREFORE BE SUSTAINED. WHILE TAKING SUCH A VIEW WE ARE FORTIFI ED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT AHEMDABAD BENCH C IN THE CASE OF GURJRA T THEMIS BIOSYN LTD V JCIT {2000) 74 ITD 339 (AHD) WHEREIN ON SIMI LAR SET OF FACTS THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER:- 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MA DE BEFORE US. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS CLEARLY VIOLATIVE OF THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 250(6) WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE APPELLATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) ARE TO STATE THE POINTS ARISING IN THE APPEA L THE DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY THEREON AND THE REASONS F OR SUCH DECISION. THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE OF THE PROV ISION IS THAT SUCH ORDERS ARE SUBJECT TO FURTHER APPEAL T O THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. SPEAKING ORDER WOULD OBVIOUSLY ENABLE A PARTY TO KNOW PRECISE POINTS DECIDED IN HI S 3 FAVOUR OR AGAINST HIM. ABSENCE OF THE FORMULATION O F THE POINT FOR DECISION FOR WANT OF CLARITY IN A DECISIO N UNDOUBTEDLY PUTS A PARTY IN QUANDARY. SECTION 250(6 ) EXPRESSLY EMBODIES THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTIC E AND SUCH A PROVISION IS CLEARLY MANDATORY IN NATURE. TH E IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) CA NNOT THEREFORE BE SUSTAINED. REGARDING THE DECISIONS OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MULTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD.'S CASE (SUPRA) CITED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WE FIN D THAT THE SAID DECISION IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE. SECTI ON 254 REFERRING TO THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL CONFERS PLE NARY JURISDICTION ON THE TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF PASSI NG ORDERS UNDER SECTION 254(1). THERE IS NO SUCH EXPRE SS STIPULATION IN SECTION 254 AS CONTAINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) RELATING TO THE ORDERS OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE RELIANCE PLAC ED BY THE CIT(A) ON MULTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD.'S CASE (SUP RA) IS ENTIRELY MISPLACED. SIMILARLY THE CASE OF ESTATE O F LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (SUPRA) CITED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND DOES NOT SUPPORT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A). 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT AH MEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT TEHMISIS BIOSYN LTD VS. JCIT (SUPRA) WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE C IT(A) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING PR OPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE ALSO DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE PREFERA BLY WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THIS O RDER. 4 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSA RY TO DECIDE THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ON MERITS. 6. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (MEHAR SINGH) (VICE PRESIDENT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28 TH DECEMBER 2011 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR