Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Thomas International Publishing Co. ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 27 July, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'G', NEW DELHI
Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, JM
ITA No. 3961/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08
ITA No. 3962/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09
Thomas International Publishing Co. Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income
India Pvt. Ltd., L-41, Connaught Tax, Circle-16(1),
Place, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAACT8392F
Assessee by : Sh. Aziz Khan, Adv.
Revenue by : Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 25.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.07.2018
ORDER
Per N. K. Saini, AM:
These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 10.03.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-19, New Delhi.
2. Since, the appeals relate to the same assessee, having common issues, were heard together, so, these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
3. The only grievance of the assessee in these appeals relate to the confirmation of penalty of Rs.4,52,360/- for the assessment year 2007-08 and Rs.3,86,614/- for the assessment year 2008-09 respectively levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Inco me Tax Act, 1961.
2 ITA Nos. 3961 & 3962/Del/2015Thomas International Publishing Co.
4. Facts of the cases in brief are that the AO levied the impugned penalties for the reasons that the disallowances made by the AO were upheld by the ld. CIT(A).
4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the penalties by passing the ex-parte orders. He simply stated that the assessee did not co mply to the notices issued for hearing and that the notices sent by Speed Post had not returned unserved.
5. Now the assessee is in appeal. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no notice for hearing was served upon the assessee, therefore, the opportunity o f being heard was not provided to the assessee and the impugned orders had been passed in violation of the principles of natura l justice.
6. In his rival sub missions, the ld. Sr. DR supported the impugned orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that the a mple opportunities of being heard were provided by the ld. CIT(A), however, the assessee did not cooperate and never turned up whenever the cases were fixed for hearing, so, there was no alternative except to decide the appeals of the assessee ex-parte.
7. We have considered the sub missions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an ad mitted fact that the impugned orders were passed by the ld. CIT(A) ex-parte, however, it is not mentioned that the notice fo r 3 ITA Nos. 3961 & 3962/Del/2015 Thomas International Publishing Co.
hearing were served upon the assessee. He simply stated that as per the India Post Website, the last notice was duly delivered. However, it was not brought on record that the notice for hearing was served upon whom, whether on the assessee or any other person. On the contrary, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that no notice for hearing was served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim "audi alteram partem". We, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
8. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order Pronounced in the Court on 27/07/2018) Sd/- Sd/-
(Sudhanshu Srivastava) (N. K. Saini)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 27/07/2018
*Subodh*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5.DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR