Amita Batra, New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 806/DEL/2011 | 1994-1995
Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 80620114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN ACMPB1633J
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 806/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant Amita Batra, New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 21-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 19-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 19-07-2011
Assessment Year 1994-1995
Appeal Filed On 10-02-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI B.K. HALDAR ITA NO. 806/DEL/2011 A.Y. 1994-95 AMITA BATRA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER C-680 NEW FRIENDS COLONY WARD NO. 22(2) NEW D ELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN/GIR NO. ACMPB1633J ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.P. RASTOGI ADV. & SH. R.L. GA RG CA RESPONDENT BY : MS. ANUSHA KHURANA SR. DR O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI J.M: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS)-XIII NEW DELHI DATED 9-12-2010 FOR A .Y. 1994-95. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 6 GROUNDS TO CHALLEN GE THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80-HHC O F THE I.T. ACT. 2. IN THIS CASE THE CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 2. THE APPELLANTS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BY I SSUE OF OPPORTUNITY NOTICE DATED 26-07-2010 FIXING THE CASE FOR 24-08- 2010. ON 23 RD AUGUST 2010 THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED ADJOURNMENT PETITION GIVING THE REASON THAT THE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR THE CASE IS YET TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE ASSESSEE. SECOND NOTICE DATED 5-10-2010 WAS ISS UED TO THE 2 ASSESSEE FIXING THE CASE FOR 14-10-2010. BUT ON 10 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 ALSO THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASS ESSEE FILED ADJOURNMENT PETITION GIVING THE REASON THAT THE PER SON CONVERSANT WITH THE CASE IS BUSY IN TIME BARRING CA SES OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AS WELL AS FINALIZATION OF AUDITS FOR THE YEAR ENDING ON 31-03-2010. THEREAFTER THIRD NOT ICE DATED 13-10-2010 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FIXING THE CA SE FOR 26- 11-2010. THIS TIME ALSO ASSESSEE NEITHER RESPONDED NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS FILED. IT SEEMS THAT ASSES SEE DOESNT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL AS THE CASE REMAINED UNA TTENDED. 3. IN CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARYA (1997) 118 ITR 461( SC) THE HONAPEX COURT WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF PROSECUTION OF APPEAL HAS STATED THAT PREFERRING AN APPEAL MEA NS MORE THAN FORMALLY FILING IT BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. TH E DELHI TRIBUNAL IN CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. AS RE PORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) WHEN FACED WITH A SIMILAR SITUATION OF NON PROSECUTION OF APPEAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF REVEN UE. 4. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF NON PROSECUTION AND NO DECI SION ON MERITS IS BEING GIVEN. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUT SET CONTENDS THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY CIT(A) EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSE E. ADJOURNMENTS WERE SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE. CIT(A) HOWEVER HELD THAT ON LAST HEARING THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND AND IN THAT EVENTUALITY DI SMISSED THE ASSESSEES FIRST APPEAL IN LIMINE RECOURSING TO THE RATIO OF TRIBUN ALS ORDER IN CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL.). LEARNE D COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY ARGUES THAT CIT(A) BEING FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT EMPOWERED TO DISMISS ANY APPEAL IN LIMINE AND THE SAME IS ONLY T HE DOMAIN OF THE ITAT TO TREAT THE APPEALS WHICH ARE NOT RESPONDED TO BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF ADDRESSES OF PARTICULARS TO SERVICE THE NOTICE OF H EARING. IN THIS CASE ALSO THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS UNADMITTED. CIT(A) HAVING NO P OWER TO DISMISS THE 3 APPEAL IN LIMINE IT IS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE WILL BE MET IF THE CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO PASS AN ORDER ON MERIT AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. 4. LEARNED DR IS HEARD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT CIT(A) DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL IN LIMINE AND IS UNDER STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO DECIDE THE GROUNDS RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE INC LINED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE O F CIT(A) FOR DECISION AFRESH ON MERITS AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAK ES NOT TO DELAY THE HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A). WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21-7-2011. SD/- SD/- ( B.K. HALDAR ) (R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21-7-2011. MP COPY TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR