IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "SMC-2": NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 4453/Del/2014
A.Y. : 2009-10
M/s Krishna Engineers, vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),
C/o Vinod Kumar Goel, New Delhi
282, Boundary Road,
Civil Lines, Meerut
(PAN : AAHFK8845Q)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Sh. V.K. Goel, Advocate
Department by : Sh. Sudhiranjan Senapati, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 03-8-2015
Date of Order : 28-9-2015
PER H.S. SIDHU: JM
ORDER
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order of the
Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Meerut dated 03.3.2014
pertaining to assessment year 2009-10.
2. The grounds of appeal read as under:-
1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without
providing an opportunity being heard after written
submission filed by the assessee. Hence, order
passed by CIT(A) is against the principle of natural
justice.
1
2. That without prejudice to ground no. 1, Ld. AO as well
as CIT(A) is in error that Section 44AD is applicable
when gross turnover is Rs. 99,75,420/- i.e., over and
above Rs. 40,00,000/- provision of Section 44AD is
applicable. Hence, addition made by the AO and
confirm by the CIT(A) @8% by invoking provision of
section 44AD is bad and not according to law.
3. That the assessee has right to add, delete or modify
any grounds during the appeal proceeding.
3. The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed
by both the parties, therefore, the same are not repeated here for the
sake of convenience.
4. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by
the Revenue Authorities alongwith the relevant records available with
the Appeal filed. I find that that in the Grounds of Appeal vide ground
No. 1 assessee has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order
without providing any opportunity being heard after written submission
filed by the assessee, hence, order passed by CIT(A) is against the
principle of natural justice. After perusing the impugned order passed
by the Ld. CIT(A), I find that the Ld. CIT(A has first reproduced the
assessment order; secondly reproduced the grounds of appeal raised
by the assessee before him; thirdly reproduced the written
submissions filed by the assessee in DAK and then passed the
impugned order and decided the issue in dispute against the assessee,
without giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore,
the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore,
in the interest of justice and in my considered opinion, Ld. CIT(A) has
2
erred in this regard. Ld. CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issue after
providing adequate opportunity of being heard personally to the
assessee or his authorized representative. It is a settled law that even
the administrative orders have to be consistent with the rules of
natural justice. Hence, I am of the view that in this case the issues in
dispute needs to be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide
the same afresh, as per law, after giving adequate opportunity of being
heard to the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider
the issues in dispute afresh and pass a proper and speaking order
considering the merits of the case, after providing adequate
opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for
statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28/9/2015.
Sd/-
[H.S. SIDHU]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date: 28/9/2015
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
4
|
