Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd., ... vs Assessee

ITA NO.2910/Del/2012

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "C", NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2910/Del/2012 A.Y. : 2006-07 M/s Hindustan VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER Industrial Resources WARD 12(4), Ltd., NEW DELHI 6/7, DB Gupta Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi (PAN: (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Assessee by : None Department by : Sh. Robin Rawat, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 20-1-2015 Date of Order : 23-1-2015

ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU : JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order of

the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XV, New Delhi dated

04.4.2012 pertaining to assessment year 2006-07

2. In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the

Registered AD post, in spite of the same, assessee, nor its

authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in

dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view

the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue

involved in the present Appeal, we are of the view that no useful

1 ITA NO.2910/Del/2012

purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the

assessee, therefore, we are deciding the present appeal exparte qua

assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.

3. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR stated that the assessee has

raised ground No. 1 in which he has stated that AO has levied the

penalty in dispute without providing sufficient opportunity of being

heard to the assessee. He requested that this ground may be

considered and decide the issue in dispute, according to law.

4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records; the

grounds raised by the assessee alongwith the orders passed by the

revenue authorities, we are of the view that as requested by the

assessee vide ground NO. 1 for providing opportunity of hearing, as

raised in ground no. 1 is reproduced below:-

"That the Ld. ITO has erred in imposing penalty of

Rs. 3,88,857/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without

giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard to

the appellant. The Ld. ITO was on leave on the date

fixed for hearing of the penalty proceedings on

8.6.2009. Hence principles of natural justice have

been violated."

5. After going through the contentions raised by the assessee in

ground no. 1, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the

2 ITA NO.2910/Del/2012

assessee is entitled for opportunity of being heard, therefore, the

issue in dispute is set aside to the file of AO to decide the same

afresh under the law, after providing full opportunity to the

assessee.

6. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 23/1/2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

[S.V. MEHROTRA] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date 23/1/2015 "SRBHATNAGAR" Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant -

2. Respondent - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT

TRUE COPY By Order,

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches

3 ITA NO.2910/Del/2012

Date of dictation ..................................

Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member...........................

Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS...................................

Date on which fair order sent to Member for signature....................................

Date on which the fair order comes back after pronouncement to the Sr. PS/PS.....................................

Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk....................................

Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk....................................

The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for Signature on the order..............................

Date of Despatch of the Order ......................................

4