Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TDS :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: form 3cd :: cpt :: VAT RATES :: VAT Audit :: empanelment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: due date for vat payment
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

Mohan Sambhaji Jagthap, 2995, Sector 23, Gurgaon. Vs ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi.
January, 30th 2015
ITA 1827 to 1830/Del/2013
Asstt.Years: 2007-08, 02-03, 06-07, 05-06

                IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                     DELHI BENCHES `E' NEW DELHI

        BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT
                           AND
        SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

     ITA NO. 1827, ITA 1828, 1829, 1830/DEL/2013
  ASSTT. YEARS: 2007-08, 2002-03, 2006-07, 2005-06

Mohan Sambhaji Jagthap,         vs     ACIT,
2995, Sector 23,                       Central Circle-13,
Gurgaon.                               New Delhi.
(PAN: ACJPJ3988R)
 (Appellant)                       (Respondent)
             Appellant by: Shri Mukesh Rana, Adv.
         Respondent by: Shri Gunjan Prashad, CIT DR

                                O R D E R

PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, J.M.

        These appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the

separate orders of the CIT(A)-I, New Delhi all dated 7.1.2013 in Appeal No.

47/11-12, 45/11-12, 44/11-12 and 43/11-12 for AY 2002-03, 2005-06,

2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted

that ground no.2 of the assessee in all four appeals may kindly be taken up

first. Ld. DR agreed to that. Ground no. 2 of the assessee in all four appeals

reads as under:-


              "2. That the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is against
         the principles of natural justice."

                                                                             1
ITA 1827 to 1830/Del/2013
Asstt.Years: 2007-08, 02-03, 06-07, 05-06




2.      Apropos ground no.2, we have heard arguments of both the sides and

carefully perused the relevant material placed on record. Ld. Counsel of the

assessee has drawn our attention towards para 2 of the assessment order

and submitted that the AO issued several notices fixing the date of hearing

after a few days but the AO has not drawn any conclusion when despite due

service of notice, neither the assessee nor his representative remained

absent during the assessment proceedings. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has

further drawn our attention towards impugned order of the CIT(A) para 9

and submitted that the assessee raised ground no. 9 before the first

appellate authority alleging that the order passed by the AO was against the

principles of natural justice but the CIT(A) did not pay any heed to ground

no. 9 of the assessee and the CIT(A) dismissed ground no. 9 without any

specific adjudication by holding that the same is general/consequential in

nature and does not require any specific adjudication.


3.      Ld. DR contended that if assessee is not cooperating during the

assessment proceedings, then the AO has no alternative but to complete

proceedings ex parte, in time barred cases. However, ld. DR fairly accepted

that if it is found just and proper, the department has no serious objection if

all the appeals are remitted back to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication.




                                                                                2
ITA 1827 to 1830/Del/2013
Asstt.Years: 2007-08, 02-03, 06-07, 05-06

4.      In view of above submissions of both the sides and observation of the

AO in para 2 of the assessment order as noted and submitted before us

hereinabove and approach of the CIT(A) about ground no. 9 of the assessee,

we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was not provided due

opportunity of hearing before the authorities below and we have no

hesitation to hold that this is a clear violation of principles of natural justice

on the part of revenue authorities. Thus, we are of the considered opinion

that the assessment proceedings in all four appeals deserve to be restored

back to the file of AO for a fresh de novo adjudication. Therefore, impugned

orders as well as assessment orders in all these four cases are set aside and

these cases are restored to the file of AO for a fresh de novo adjudication

after affording due opportunity of hearing for the assessee. The assessee is

also directed to cooperate with the AO during assessment proceedings.

Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the assessee in all four appeals is allowed.







5.      Since by the earlier part of this order, we have restored all four cases

to the file of AO for a fresh de novo reassessment, therefore, other grounds

of the assessee do not survive for adjudication by this Tribunal. Finally, all

four appeals of the assessee are deemed to be allowed for statistical

purposes.



                                                                                3
ITA 1827 to 1830/Del/2013
Asstt.Years: 2007-08, 02-03, 06-07, 05-06




         Order pronounced in the open court on 27.01.2015.

         Sd/-                                    Sd/-

  (G.D. AGRAWAL)                            (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG)
  VICE PRESIDENT                              JUDICIAL MEMBER

DT. 27th January, 2015
`GS'


Copy forwarded to:-

    1.   Appellant
    2.   Respondent
    3.   C.I.T.(A)
    4.   C.I.T. 5. DR
                                                 By Order



                                             Asstt. Registrar




                                                                  4

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Web Application Development Web based Software Solution Web Application Deployment Web Application Solutions Web Application Software Development Web Application Deployment Web Application Programming Web Application Design and Development

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions