M/s Hydro Jet Air Industries Ltd., New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3607/DEL/2011 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 360720114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AABCH1638Q
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3607/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s)
Appellant M/s Hydro Jet Air Industries Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 21-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 21-09-2011
Next Hearing Date 21-09-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 21-07-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI B.C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3607/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S HYDRO JET AIR INDUSTRIES LTD. B-1/A-15 MOHAN CO-OP. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE MATHURA ROAD NEW DELHI. (PAN: AABCH 1638 Q) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(4) NEW DELHI. [APPELLANT] [RESPONDEN T] APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : DR. B.R.R. KUMAR SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 21.0 9.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.09.2011 O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2011 OF THE CIT(A)-XI NEW DELHI PERTAINING T O 2005-06 A.Y. 2. NO ONE WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED ORDER. DESPITE THE SAME NO ONE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. IT WAS CONSI DERED APPROPRIATE TO PROCEED WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE AS SESSEE APPELLANT ON MERIT AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( D.R.) 3. VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. HOWEVER THE LD. D.R. WAS HEARD ONLY IN RE GARD TO GROUND NO.1 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE AGITATED THAT IT DID NOT RECEI VE ANY NOTICE IN REGARD TO THE DATE OF HEARING AND THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED EX-P ARTE. BY THE SAID GROUND IT WAS AGITATED THAT THE ADDRESS WHICH WAS MENTIONE D IN THE APPEAL IS CORRECT WHICH IS THE SAME AS IS AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER SERVICE ITA NO.3607/DEL./2011 A.Y. 2005-06 2 OF NOTICE WAS CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT OPPORTU NITY WAS NOT AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT IT WA S PASSED EX-PARTE WHEREIN ACTION OF THE A.O. WAS CONFIRMED ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER PARAGRAPH NO.2.1 VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES WERE AFFORDED BY THE CIT(A) T O THE ASSESSEE AND THEY WERE RECEIVED BACK UNNERVED. THE NOTICES WERE SENT THROUGH THE A.O. WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE TECHNICALITIES AS TO THE M ODE OF SERVICE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIREC TION TO DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER GIV ING TO THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. WE DIRECT T HAT THE CIT(A) MAY FIX THE DATE OF HEARING BY WAY OF SPEED POST/REGISTERED POST IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF HEARING AND MAY NEED TO RESORT TO SERVING OF NOTICES THROUGH THE A.O. OR BY WAY OF AFFIXTURE ONLY IN THE EXTREME SIT UATION WHERE THE CIT(A) IS UNABLE TO GET THE NOTICE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY NORMAL MODE OF SERVICE. THE NEED FOR MAKING THE SAID OBSERVATION ARISES AS FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT IS NOT EMERGING WHAT IF ANY WERE THE REASONS WITH THE CIT(A) TO RESORT TO THESE EXTREME MEASURES WHICH HA D BEEN RESORTED TO FOR GETTING THE NOTICE SERVED FOR HEARING IN ASSESSEES APPEAL. HOWEVER THE REASON FOR WHICH THE EXTREME MEASURES WERE RESORTED TO IN THE ABSENCE OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD NEED NO FURTHER COMMEN T AND HAVE BEEN MENTIONED SOLELY TO ADDRESS THE ASPECT OF GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 5. THE CONCLUSION TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN GUIDED BY THE WELL CELEBRATED UNIVERSAL PRINCI PLE OF AUDI ALTRAM PARTUM NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD. ITA NO.3607/DEL./2011 A.Y. 2005-06 3 6. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT IF ANY OR DER BY A JUDICIAL OR A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OR FOR THAT MATTER AN ADMI NISTRATIVE AUTHORITY IS PASSED WHICH IS ADVERSE TO THE PARTY IMPLICITLY BY READING THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE INTO IT A RESPONSIBILITY IS CAST ON THE AUTHORITY PASSING THE ORDER TO GIVE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO THE PERSON. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SAID RULE CANNOT BE OVER-EMPHASIZ ED. 7. THUS IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES AND POSITION OF LAW WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO RESTOR E THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE SAID AUTHORITY I.E. THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIR ECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER AFTE R GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 21.09.2011. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21 ST SEPTEMBER 2011 PBN/* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. D.R. ITAT BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES