ITA NO. 5138/Del/2010


                 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                      DELHI BENCH "B", NEW DELHI
               BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                                    AND
              SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                           I.T.A. No. 5138/Del/2010

                                A.Y. : 2006-07


Focus Technology Pvt. Ltd.,           vs. Income Tax Officer, 11(3),
27-A, Zamrudpur, Behind Kailash           New Delhi
Apartments, Kailash Colony, New
Delhi ­ 110 048
(PAN : AAACF2147G)
(Appellant )                               (Respondent )

            Assessee by                :   Sh. Prem Lamba, CA
           Department by               :   Sh. J.S. Ahlawat, Sr. D.R.







                              ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM
     This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the

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

15.6.2010 pertaining to assessment year 2006-07.


2.   The    grounds raised read as under:-

     i)          The order of the Assessing Officer is bad in law and on
                 facts.

     ii)         The Assessing Officer is not in a position to bear such
                 liability due to no business in the current year.

                 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend,
                 modify, substitute, delete and / or rescind all or any of
                                      1
                                                          ITA NO. 5138/Del/2010


                 the grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing, if
                 necessity so arises.

     iii)        The Assessing Officer erred in ignoring the fact that
                 the requisite details    were    submitted       wherever
                 possible and the same was checked by the Assessing
                 Officer.

     iv)         That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
                 The Assessing Officer added back of ` 55,472/- due to
                 non filing of confirmation instead of issuing notice u/s.
                 131 to the party.

     v)          That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
                 The Assessing Officer added back of ` 1,14,221/- 25%
                 of ` 3,82,192/-         against balance of M/s Proactive
                 Data       System Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Micro System
                 Enterprise ` 74,690/- instead of giving specific amount
                 of transactions with the above two parties.

3.   At the threshold we note in this case there is a delay of 97 days
in filing of the appeal.     Assessee has filed plea for condonation of
delay. The reasonable cause for this has been attributed to the fact
that the assessee was not in good terms with the landlord and he did
not give any correspondence to the assessee.            Hence, notice of
hearing in this case was not received in time.

4.   We have heard both the counsel and perused the records.                In
our considered opinion, there is a reasonable cause for the delay and
hence, we condone the same.








                                     2
                                                        ITA NO. 5138/Del/2010


5.   In this case assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer u/s.
143(3) of the Act at a total income of ` 3,65,738/-.

6.   Upon assessee's appeal Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)

noted that assessee has sought adjournments, but did         not appear.

Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) further noted that notice dated

28.5.2010 was issued to the assessee for fixing the case for hearing on

08.6.2010.    This notice was remained un-complied with.                 Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (A) concluded that assessee has nothing

to say on the points which arose during the course of assessment

proceedings. Hence, he confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.


7.   Against the above order the assessee is in appeal before us.

8.   We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material

produced and precedent relied upon.             We find that the Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in this regard has confirmed the order

of the Assessing Officer by noting that assessee did not appear before

him and did not advance any arguments.        In our considered opinion,

even the administrative orders have to be in consonance with the rule

of natural justice.   Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) should have

passed a speaking order. Accordingly, we remit this issue to the file of

the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) to pass a speaking order on

the issue raised before him in the appeal.


                                    3
                                                         ITA NO. 5138/Del/2010


9.    In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for

statistical purposes.


      Order pronounced in the open court on 10/7/2012,                 upon
conclusion of hearing.

      Sd/-                                        Sd/-

       TOLANI]
 [R.P. TOLANI]                              [SHAMIM YAHYA]
JUDICIAL MEMBER                             ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Date 10/7/2012
"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