Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Alcobex Metals Ltd., Jodhpur vs Acit, Circle- 1(1), New Delhi on 16 December, 2019
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,
अिधकरण द ली यायपीठ "जी
जी",
जी नई द ली म
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'G', NEW DELHI
सुौी सुषमा चावला,
चावला, याियक सदःय एवं ौी आर.
आर.के.पांडा,
ा, लेखा सदःय के सम&
BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM & SH.R.K.PANDA, AM
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1791 & 1936/Del/2018
िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2004-05
Alcobex Metals Ltd.,
24, Heavy Industrial Area,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan
PAN-AAACA3098H ..........अपीलाथ)/Appellant
vs
The ACIT,
Circle-1(1), New Delhi. ............. ू+यथ) / Respondent
अपीलाथ) क, ओर से/ Appellant by : Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA
ू+यथ) क, ओर से/ Respondent by : Sh. S.S.Rana, CIT DR
सुनवाई क, तार/ख / घोषणा क, तार/ख /
Date of Hearing: 16.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019
आदेश / ORDER
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:
The present appeals filed by assessee are against order of CIT(A)-22, New Delhi dated 29.12.2017 relating to assessment years 2007-08 & 2004-05 respectively.
2 ITA Nos.1791 & 1936/Del/2018
Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2004-05
2. Both appeals filed by the assessee have been listed for hearing and we proceed to decide the same by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Both appeals are filed against the ex-parte order passed qua the assessee and without going into merits of the addition. ITA No.1791/Del/2018 [A.Y: 2007-08]
3. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) for deciding the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee and without going into the merits of the addition.
4. The learned AR for the assessee pointed out 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.
5. The learned DR for the Revenue on the other hand pointed out that sufficient opportunity has been afforded to the assessee.
6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Under the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act"), it is incumbent upon the CIT(A) to decide the appeal after hearing the parties and state the points for determination, the decision thereon and also the reasons for the decision. While deciding the appeal, 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 Late Tukoji Rao Holker vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP). In these facts and 3 ITA Nos.1791 & 1936/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2004-05 circumstances, where the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal by applying the above said ratios, the order of the learned CIT(A) suffers from infirmity. The CIT(A) while deciding the issue on merits have also to give reasons for coming to the conclusion and in the absence of the same, the order of the CIT(A) again suffers from infirmity. In the present appeal, we find that that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee and had failed to decide the appeal by passing reasoned assessment order.
7. 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 hearing to the assessee. Further the assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT(A) and participate in the appellate proceedings. The appeal is thus decided on this preliminary issue without going into the merits of the addition.
8. Hence this appeal is restored back to the file of CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits after 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 this appeal is thus decided in favour of assessee. Since the appeal is being decided on the preliminary issue, we are not addressing the issue raised on merit.
9. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. 4 ITA Nos.1791 & 1936/Del/2018
Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2004-05 ITA No.1936/Del/2018 [A.Y: 2004-05]
10. This appeal filed by the assessee is against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
11. The Ld.AR for the assessee pointed out that the quantum appeal has been sent back to the Assessing Officer and hence, the penalty is not sustainable.
12. On the perusal of the record and after hearing both the Authorized representatives, we are of the view that since the issue on merits has been set aside to the file of Assessing Officer, the penalty proceedings also are set aside to the file of Assessing Officer who shall decide the same after deciding the issue on merits. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
13. In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17th day of December, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.K.PANDA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA)
लेखा सदःय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER याियक सदःय/JUDICIAL MEMBER
द ली / दनांक Dated : 17th December, 2019.
* Amit Kumar *
5 ITA Nos.1791 & 1936/Del/2018
Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2004-05
आदेश क, ूितिल3प अमे3षत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ) / The Appellant
2. ू+यथ) / The Respondent
3. आयकर आयु6(अपील) / The CIT(A)
4. मु9य आयकर आयु6 / The Pr. CIT
5. 3वभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, द ली / DR, ITAT, Delhi
6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स+या3पत ूित //True Copy// सहायक र>जःशार, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण , द ली Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi