Rajkamal Associates Ltd.,23, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), New Delhi.
February, 20th 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES `F'NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA NO. 704/DEL/2013
Rajkamal Associates Ltd., vs Income Tax Officer,
23, Paschimi Marg, Ward-15(2),
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
Appellant by: Shri M.P. Rastogi, CA
Respondent by: Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR
PER C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the
CIT(A)- XVIII, New Delhi dated 8.11.2012 in Appeal No.410/11-12 for AY
2. We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the
relevant material placed on record. At the outset, we take up ground no. 1 and 2
of the assessee which read as under:-
"1. Order passed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 143(3)/147 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 is arbitrary and bad in law and on facts
and circumstances of the case.
2. The ld. CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi did not afford reasonable
opportunity to the appellant to represent its case which is
against the law of natural justice."
3. Apropos aforementioned grounds, the ld. Counsel of the assessee
submitted that the CIT(A) did not afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to
the appellant assessee to represent its case during first appellate proceedings
which is against the principles of natural justice. Ld. Counsel has further drawn
our attention towards operative para 3 at page 2 of the impugned order and
submitted that on 25.10.2012, the assessee filed an application requesting for
adjournment to the first week of November, 2012 and the case was adjourned to
6.11.2012 but on the said date, the assessee and its representative could not
attend the proceedings due to some unavoidable circumstances. Ld. Counsel
further submitted that the assessee and its representative remained absent due to
reasons beyond control under a bona fide belief that a reasonable opportunity of
hearing would be afforded to the assessee. Ld. Counsel vehemently contended
that without prejudice to the above submissions and contentions if, for the sake
of argument, it may be presumed that the assessee and its representative
remained absent during the first appellate proceeding, then also the first
appellate authority i.e. CIT(A) is duty bound to adjudicate and address all the
grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before the first appellate authority but
the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal simply observing that it is apparent that the
assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal which is not a legal and
justified approach of the first appellate authority.
4. Replying to the above, ld. DR submitted that if assessee is neither
appearing nor filing any application for adjournment on fixed date of hearing
i.e. 6.11.2012, then the first appellate authority has no alternative to dismiss the
appeal in absence of proper persuasion. However, ld. DR fairly accepted that if
it is found just and proper, then the case may be restored to the file of CIT(A)
for a fresh adjudication and department has no serious objection in this regard.
5. On careful consideration of above submissions of both the sides and
careful perusal of relevant material placed on record, from bare reading of the
operative para 3 at page 2 of the impugned order, we observe that the CIT(A)
has dismissed the appeal with this conclusion that the assessee is not interested
in pursuing the appeal without expressing and adjudicating any views on the
grounds raised by the assessee in its first appeal. This is not a proper and
justified approach as if assessee remains absent despite service of notice, then
the CIT(A) may proceed to decide the appeal on merits addressing all the
grounds raised by the assessee on the basis of material available on appeal
record but the appeal cannot be dismissed summarily by passing a cryptic order.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) ought to have
decided and adjudicated all the issues and grounds raised by the assessee and,
therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is not sustainable and we set aside
the same by restoring the first appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh
adjudication on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing for the
assessee. Needless to say that the assessee shall cooperate during fresh
proceedings before the CIT(A).
6. In the result, ground no. 1 and 2 of the assessee are allowed in the manner
as indicated above. Since we have restored first appeal to the file of CIT(A) for
fresh adjudication, therefore, other grounds of the assessee do not require
adjudication on merits and we dismiss the same as being infructuous.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19.02.2015.
(R.S. SYAL) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
DT. 19th February, 2015
Copy forwarded to:-
4. C.I.T. 5. DR