Smt. Sudesh Yadav, Ghaziabad v. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITA 3762/DEL/2017 | 2012-2013
Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 376220114 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN ACPPY2991P
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3762/DEL/2017
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Sudesh Yadav, Ghaziabad
Respondent ITO, Ghaziabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 29-11-2019
Assessment Year 2012-2013
Appeal Filed On 09-06-2017
Judgment Text
PAGE | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI . . BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT M EMBER / ITA NO. 3762/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SUDESH YADAV AKHILESH KUMAR ADVOCATE .......... /APPELLANT CHAMBER NO. 206-207 ANSAL SATYAM RDC RAJ NAGAR GHAZIABAD PAN-ACPPY2991P VS ITO WARD-2(3) GHAZIABAD . /RESPONDENT !'# /APPELLANT BY :SH. AKHILESH KUMAR & SH. DINESH MALHOTRA ADVS !'# /RESPONDENT BY : SH. SARAS KUMAR SR. DR DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI / ITA NO. 4749/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SH. DEVINDER SINGH CHAWLA .......... /APPELLANT R-2/9 RAJNAGAR GHAZIABAD PAN-ACTPC8576C VS DY. CIT CIRCLE-1 GHAZIABAD . / RESPONDENT !'# / APPELLANT BY : NONE !'# / RESPONDENT BY : MS. ASHIMA NEB SR. DR DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI PAGE | 2 / ITA NO. 3766/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 VIJAY KUMAR GHELANI 4023 NAYA BAZAR DELHI .......... /APPELLANT PAN-AAGPG5572K VS ITO WARD-47(1) NEW DELHI . / RESPONDENT !'# / APPELLANT BY : NONE !'# / RESPONDENT BY : SH. SARAS KUMAR SR. DR DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI / ITA NO. 3783/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SMT. PRITI BAJAJ H. NO. 39 SECTOR-15A .......... /APPELLANT NOIDA GAUTA BUDH NAGAR UTTAR PRADESH PAN-ACTPB5683M VS ITO WARD-2(4) NOIDA . / RESPONDENT !'# / APPELLANT BY : SH. SANKET CHHAJEDI CA !'# / RESPONDENT BY : SH. SARAS KUMAR SR. DR DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI / ITA NO. 3878/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SOCIETY FOR MEDIA AND VALUE EDUCATION 375-A MAYUR VIHAR-PHASE-I .......... /APPELLANT DELHI-110091 PAN-AACTS4225R VS PAGE | 3 ITO (E) WARD-2(2) NEW DELHI . / RESPONDENT !'# / APPELLANT BY : SH. PIYUSH KAUSHIK ADV !'# / RESPONDENT BY : MS. ASHIMA NEB SR. DR DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI / ITA NO. 4077/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S MAHARANA PRATAP EDUCATION CENTRE .......... /APPELLANT 117/Q/66 SHARAD NAGAR KANPUR PAN-AABTM5254H VS ACIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE GHAZIABAD . / RESPONDENT !'# / APPELLANT BY : NONE !'# / RESPONDENT BY : MS. RAKHI VIMAL SR. DR DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI / ITA NO.4223/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SH. NARENDRA PAL .......... /APPELLANT DIVINE HERITAGE 11-A GROUND FLOOR GYAN KHAND-II INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD PAN-AVQPP2801H VS ITO WARD-2(5) . / RESPONDENT GHAZIABAD !'# / APPELLANT BY : SH. AKHILESH KUMAR DINESH MALH OTRA ADVS !'# / RESPONDENT BY : MS. RAKHI VIMAL SR. DR DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI PAGE | 4 / ITA NO.4294/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S HILTI INDIA PVT. LTD. A-16 BLOCK B-I MOHAN .......... /APPELLANT CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE LIMITED NEW DELHI PAN-AAACH3583Q VS DCIT CIRCLE-11(1) NEW DELHI . / RESPONDENT !'# / APPELLANT BY : SH. ARUN BANSAL CA !'# / RESPONDENT BY : MS. ASHIMA NEB SR. DR DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI / ITA NO.4685/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 GANGA KAVERI SEEDS PVT. LTD. 110 INDIRA MARKET OLD SUBZI MANDI .......... /APPELLANT NEW DELHI PAN-AAACG3220D VS DCIT CIRCLE-10(1) NEW DELHI . / RESPONDENT !'# / APPELLANT BY : NONE !'# / RESPONDENT BY : MS. ASHIMA NEB SR. DR DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI / ITA NO.4778/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SMT. ASHA AGGARWAL .......... /APPELLANT WZ-387 RISHI NAGAR RANI BAGH NEW DELHI PAN-AFBPA1083P VS ITO WARD-41(4) PAGE | 5 NEW DELHI . / RESPONDENT !'# / APPELLANT BY : SH. VISHAL AGGARWAL FCA !'# / RESPONDENT BY : SH. SANJAY KAPOOR SR. DR DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI / ITA NO.4229/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S MANSI SEHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD. .......... /APPELLANT C/O LK CHOUDHARY (SECRETARY) 99 MANSI VIHAR SECTOR-23 GHAZIABAD PAN-AACTM8741Q VS DCIT CIRCLE-1 GHAZIABAD . / RESPONDENT !'# /APPELLANT BY: SH.AKHILESH KUMAR SH. DINESH MALHO TRA ADVS !'# /RESPONDENT BY : MS. RAKHI VIMAL SR. DR DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI / ITA NO.4072/DEL/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LTD. .......... /APPELLANT VILLAGE-ISMILA SARAI CHABILA BULANDSHAHR PAN-AAAD0476G VS ACIT CIRCLE-BULANDSHAHR . / RESPONDENT BULANDSHAHR !'# / APPELLANT BY : NONE !'# / RESPONDENT BY : MS. ASHIMA NEB SR. DR $%!&'( / DATE OF HEARING : 25.11.2019 )* !&'( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.11.2019 PAGE | 6 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA JM: THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012- 13/ 2013-14/ 2014- 15 AND ALSO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2011-12 AG AINST RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 143(3)/144 OF THE ACT. 2. THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN LISTED FO R HEARING AND WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE SAME BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORD ER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. IN THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE APPEALS EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION. IN S OME APPEALS THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED BY CIT(A) ON MERITS BUT EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN SOME OF THE CASES THERE IS NO REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US BUT BECAUSE OF THE ISSUE INVOLVE D WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE SAID APPEALS AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR FOR T HE REVENUE. 4. IT IS A COMMON CASE RAISED BY DIFFERENT ARS FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EX PARTE ORDER WITHOUT ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. IN OTHER CASES IT IS POINTED OUT THAT WHERE THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS BUT EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. PAGE | 7 5. THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND POINTED OUT THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN AFFORDED TO THE ASS ESSEE. AND IN SOME CASES THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUES ON MERITS ALSO. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEALS AFTER HEARING THE PART IES AND STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION THE DECISION THEREON AND ALSO TH E REASONS FOR THE DECISION. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS CIT(A) HAS NO POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION BY RELYING ON THE RATIO/ S LAID DOWN IN CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARYA & ANOTHER 118 ITR 461 (SC) AND LA TE TUKOJI RAO HOLKER VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP). IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY APPLYI NG THE ABOVE SAID RATIOS THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUFFERS FRO M INFIRMITY. THE CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE ON MERITS HAVE ALSO TO PRO VIDE REASONS FOR COMING TO THE CONCLUSION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AGAIN SUFFERS FROM INFIRMITY. IN THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS WE FIND THAT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AND IN MOST OF THE CASES HAD FAILED TO DECIDE THE APPEALS BY PASSING REASONED ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7. IN SOME OF THE APPEALS CIT(A) HAD DECIDED THE I SSUE ON MERITS BUT WITHOUT AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. SUCH ORDER/S SUFFERS FROM INFIRMITY AS IT VIOLATES THE P RINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN SUCH CASES ALSO WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY PAGE | 8 OF HEARING SHOULD BE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E DECIDING THE ISSUES ON MERITS. 8. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS BY A REASONED ORDER AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HE ARING TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEF ORE THE CIT(A) AND PARTICIPATE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE APPEA LS ARE THUS DECIDED ON THIS PRELIMINARY ISSUE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERIT S OF THE ADDITION. 9. IN ITA NO. 4229/DEL/2017 THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DI SMISSED BY THE CIT(A) IN LIMINE ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED LATE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL LATE BY ONE DAY AS THE LAST DAY WAS SUNDAY AND THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON THE NEXT WORKING DAY. HENCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BE DECIDED ON MERITS. WE FIN D THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE BUT SINCE THERE IS N O DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL LATE THE APPEAL IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FIL E OF THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME ON MERITS AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN ITA NO. 4072/DEL/2017 THERE IS A DELAY OF 12 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL LATE BEFORE THE CIT(A). DESPITE THE ISSUE OF NOTICE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE APEX COURT I N COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST KATIJI & OTHERS REPORTED IN 167 ITR 471 HAS HELD THAT PAGE | 9 WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIO N ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERV ES TO BE PREFERRED THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE VESTED RIGHT IN JUS TICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF NON-DELIBERATE DELAY. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION TH AT DELAY IS OCCASIONED DELIBERATELY. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT S MALL DELAY OF 12 DAYS NEEDS TO BE CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY WE CONDONE THE S AME AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) WHO SHALL DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING T O THE ASSESSEE. 11. HENCE THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS ARE RESTORED BACK T O THE FILE OF RESPECTIVE CIT(A)/S TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS A FTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COMPLY WITH NOTICES ISSUED BY THE CIT(A ). THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS IS THUS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. SINCE THE APPEALS ARE BEING DECIDED ON THE PRELIMINARY IS SUE WE ARE NOT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE RAISED ON MERIT. 12. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ( ( ( ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER / DATED : 29 TH NOVEMBER 2019 SH PAGE | 10 !&-.-&/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $0 1 2 / THE CIT(A) 4. $3 $0 / THE PR. CIT 5. 6. -45& 6 6 / DR ITAT DELHI 578%/ GUARD FILE. $ $ $ $ / BY ORDER -&& // TRUE COPY // : ; 6 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI