IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: `SMC' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 3274/Del/2018
Assessment Year: 2014-15
KISHORE KUMAR, VS. ITO, WARD 1(3)(4)
PLOT NO. 90, AMBIANCE FORT HALDWANI
COLONY, ATTAPUR,
HYDERABAD 500048
(PANACFPK7109P)
(ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT)
Assessee by: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush
Kumar Kamal, CA
Revenue by: Shri Pradeep Kumar Meel, Sr. DR.
ORDER
This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 30.1.2018
passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Haldwani relating to Assessment Year 2014-
15.
2. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both
the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of
brevity.
3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that
Ld. CIT(A) has passed an exparte order dated 30.1.2018 without giving
proper opportunity to the assessee. He further submitted that the
assessee's father in law was suffering from medical illness from the last
one year and passed away on 24.1.2018 and due to this fact the assessee
2
was unable to respond to any of the notices and dismissed the appeal of
the Assessee by upholding the action of the AO.
4. Ld. DR has stated that assessee remained non-cooperative before
the AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) and is not entitled for any lenient
view from this Bench. Hence, he requested that the Appeal filed by the
Assessee may be dismissed.
5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, especially
the impugned order, I am of the view that there is no doubt assessee
remained non-cooperative before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has
mentioned the same in his order dated 30.1.2018, but Ld. CIT(A) has
confirmed the assessment order in a routine manner, without discussing
in detail the facts and circumstance of the case and also did not deal the
issue on merit and passed a non-speaking order, which in my opinion, is
not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and it is an
erroneous approach. I am also of the opinion that Ld. CIT(A) has not
considered the fact that the assessee's father in law was suffering from
medical illness and passed away on 24.1.2018. It is a settled law that
even an administrative order has to be speaking one.
6. In this regard I draw support from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
M/s Sahara India (Farms) Vs. CIT & Anr. in [2008] 300 ITR 403 has held
that even "an administrative order has to be consistent with the rules of
natural justice".
3
7. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully
following the precedent, I remit back the issues to the files of the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider each and every
aspects of the issues involved in the Appeal and decide the same
afresh, after passing a speaking order and considered all the
evidences/documents. Needless to add that the assessee should be
given adequate opportunity of being heard.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed for
statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 29/10/2018.
Sd/-
[H.S. SIDHU]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date 29/10/2018
"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
4
|
