ITA NO. 2997/Del/2013
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "G", NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 2997/DEL/2013
A.Y. : 2008-09
Ms. Surabhi Bishnoi, VS. ITO, WARD 22(2),
D-1028, New CR BUILDING,
Friends Colony, IP ESTATE,
New Delhi NEW DELHI
(PAN: ALKPB7807R)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Assessee by : Sh. Arun Kishore, CA
Department by : Sh. BRR Kumar, Sr. D.R.
Date of Hearing : 03-11-2014
Date of Order : 03-11-2014
ORDER
PER H.S. SIDHU : JM
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of
the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIII, New Delhi
dated 14.2.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09.
2. The grounds raised in the appeal read as under:-
"1. That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the
Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal.
2(i) That on the last date of hearing on 13.2.2013, the
Appellant's Adjournment application was summarily
1
ITA NO. 2997/Del/2013
dismissed and returned without looking into the
merits of the case.
(ii) That the counsel of the appellant had to undergo
tests including MRI Brain and ear scan on
13.2.2013, as such a request for adjournment was
made.
(iii) That reasonable opportunity of being heard was not
provided by the first Appellate Authority as such the
present appeal be restored back t the file of CIT(A).
3.(i) That without prejudice to above contentions
addition of Rs. 24,50,000/- made on assumption be
deleted.
(ii) That the evidence filed has been summarily
rejected on flimsy grounds.
4. That without prejudice to above contentions, the
addition of Rs. 1,71,929/- erroneously made as
short term capital gain be deleted.
5. That without prejudice to above contentions, the
assessment order is barred by limitation, since
served upon the assessee after 31st December,
2010.
2
ITA NO. 2997/Del/2013
6. That the net income of the appellant be reduced to
Rs. 26,21,929/-."
3. The facts of the case are not in dispute by both the parties,
therefore, need not repeated here for the sake of convenience.
4. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that
the lower authorities have not given sufficient opportunity to the
assessee for substantiating her claim before the Ld. First Appellate
Authority and has wrongly decided the issues in dispute against the
assesse. He further submitted that Ld. Counsel of the assessee had
undergone the Diagnostic Tests including MRI Brain and Ear Scan on
the date when the Ld. First Appellate Authority has fixed the appeal
for hearing before him. But assessee has requested for adjournment
by mentioning these reasons before the Ld. CIT(A). But, Ld. CIT(A)
has not accepted the reasons of the assessee and decide the issues
in dispute against the assessee, which is contrary to the principles
of natural justice. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated that he
himself appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) and disclosed all these facts
before him. But the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the same and
decide the issues in dispute against the assessee. He only
requested that the issue in dispute may be set aside to the Ld.
CIT(A) to decide the same after providing sufficient opportunity to
the assessee.
5. On the contrary, Ld. DR opposed the request of the assessee
and relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).
6. We have heard both the parties and perused the record
available with us especially the orders passed by the revenue
authorities. Sh. Arun Kishore, CA, (Authorized Representative) of the
3
ITA NO. 2997/Del/2013
assessee himself appeared before the ld. CIT(A) and requested for
short adjournment on medical grounds, but the same request has
been rejected by the Ld. First Appellate Authority and decide the
issue against the assessee. In our considered opinion, that
arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee are very
plausible, therefore, we accept the same by cancelling the
impugned order passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. We are
of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly rejected the request of the
assessee and passed the impugned order against the principles of
natural justice. Sh. Arun Kishore, Ld. CA (Authorised Representative)
of the assessee has himself appeared before us and made a
statement that he had undergone Diagnostic Tests including MRI
Brain and Ear Scan on the date when the Ld. First Appellate
Authority has fixed the appeal for hearing before him, but the Ld.
CIT(A) has not accepted the request of the assessee and pass the
impugned order dated 14.2.2013. In our considered opinion, Ld.
CIT(A) should believe the statement of Ld. Counsel for the assessee
and examine the adjournment matter and accordingly fix the case
on the next suitable date. We are also of the view that assessee
should not suffer due to medical treatment viz. getting Diagnostic
Tests including MRI Brain and Ear Scan of the Ld. Counsel of the
assessee, which are very much essential for the health of the ld.
Counsel of the assessee. Hence, in our opinion, the impugned order
4
ITA NO. 2997/Del/2013
passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the principles of natural
justice and therefore, we cancel the same and setting the aside the
issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to
decide the same afresh under the law, after giving full opportunity
to the assessee.
6. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed
for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03/11/2014, upon
conclusion of hearing.
Sd/- Sd/-
[T.S. KAPOOR] [H.S. SIDHU]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date 03/11/2014
"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
5
ITA NO. 2997/Del/2013
6
|
