Shri Amit Digvijay Singh, Nashik v. DCIT Cent. Cir.-1,, Nashik

ITA 495/PUN/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 49524514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AQZPS2999F
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 495/PUN/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant Shri Amit Digvijay Singh, Nashik
Respondent DCIT Cent. Cir.-1,, Nashik
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 20-04-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1 . 49 4 /PN/11 200 5 - 0 6 SHRI AMIT DIGVIJAY SINGH DURGESH RESIDENCY APPT. ANANDWALLI GANGAPUR ROAD NASIK PAN AQZPS2999F DY. CIT CENT. CIR. 1 NASIK 2 . 49 5 /PN/11 200 6 - 0 7 - DO - - DO - APPELLANT BY: SHRI M.K. KULKARNI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI HARESHWAR SHARMA ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JM BOTH THESE APPEALS RELATE TO SAME ASSESSEE RAISING COMMON ISSUES AND ARISE OUT OF SEPARATE ORDERS OF T HE CIT(A)-I NASIK DATED 22-2-2011 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND 2006- 07. SO THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISP OSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIE NCE. THE MAIN ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS IS WITH REGARDS TO NON-SPEAKING ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). 2. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY GROUP OF ASSESSES IN THE CASE OF HOTEL SA I SIDDI (P) LTD.. IN ITA NO. 529/PN/2011 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 W HEREIN THE MATTER HAS BEEN REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E CIT(A) 2 ITA NO.494 AND 495/PN/2011 SHRI AMIT DIGVIJAY SINGH A.Y. 2005-006 & 2006-07 FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVIN G AS UNDER: 9.4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 250(6) OF THE AC T. SECTION 250(6) READS AS UNDER: 250(6) THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASON FOR THE DECISION. ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) THE CIT(A) IS UNDER LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SIEMEN S ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING CO. OF INDIA VS. UNIO N OF INDIA (1976) AIR SC 1785 OBSERVED AS UNDER: WHERE AN AUTHORITY MAKES AN ORDER IN EXERCISE OF ITS QUASI JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS IT MUST RECORD ITS REASON IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER IT MAKES. IN OTHER WORDS EVERY QUASI JUDICIAL ORDER MUST BE SUPPORTED BY REASONS. IT MEANS THAT THE CIT(A) BEING QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHO RITY IS SUPPOSED TO SPELL OUT THE REASONS IN HIS ORDER. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE RESTORE TH E MATTER TO THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE TH E SAME AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE A RE RESTORING THE MATTER ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE SO WE ARE REFRAINING TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON MERITS OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE GROUNDS. ACCORDINGLY THIS APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3. FACTS BEING SIMILAR SO FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WE REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AS PER FA CT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO T HE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE MATTER ON A 3 ITA NO.494 AND 495/PN/2011 SHRI AMIT DIGVIJAY SINGH A.Y. 2005-006 & 2006-07 PRELIMINARY ISSUE SO WE ARE REFRAINING TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON MERITS OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN BOTH THE SE APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. BEFORE PARTING WITH THIS DECISION DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US IN RESPONSE TO BENCH QUERY W ITH REGARDS TO IMPOSING COST FOR APATHY TOWARDS PROCEED INGS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT HE WOULD NOT MIND IF ANY COST IS IMPOSED FOR APATHY TOWARDS PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE L OWER AUTHORITIES. HAVING SAID SO WE OBSERVE THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS BEEN APATHETIC TOWARDS THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES. SO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE W E IMPOSE COST OF RS. 10 000/- IN EACH APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE PAID TO DEPARTMENT. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COST IMPOSED BY US. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 29 TH JULY 2011 ANKAM 4 ITA NO.494 AND 495/PN/2011 SHRI AMIT DIGVIJAY SINGH A.Y. 2005-006 & 2006-07 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-I NASIK 4. THE CIT I NASIK 5. THE D.R ITAT A BENCH PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL