M/s. Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Good Life Impex Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Income Tax Officer(E), Ward 6(2), (Old Jurisdiction)
September, 08th 2021
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI
BEFORE, SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
(ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13)
M/s. Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer(E),
(Formerly known as Good Life Ward 6(2),
Impex Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. (Old Jurisdiction)
D-13, Bhagwan Dass Nagar, East
Punjabi Bagh, ITO,
New Delhi-110 026 Ward No.3,
PAN-AADCG 1017H (Respondent) (Appellant)
Appellant By None
Respondent by None (Application Rejected)
Date of Hearing 17.08.2021
Date of Pronouncement 07.09.2021
Hearing conducted via Webex
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order
dated 28.03.2018 of CIT(A)-7, New Delhi pertaining to 2012-13 assessment year.
The order is assailed on various grounds including ground No.2 which reads as
“2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Learned CIT(A) is bad both the eye of law and on facts as the same has been passed without having jurisdiction, the same has been passed without having jurisdiction, hence the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without providing an opportunity of being heard is totally wrong, bad in law and needs to be quashed.” ITA No.7590 /Del/2019 Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
2. At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the parties. Sr. DR Mr. R.K. Gupta has sent an adjournment application in all the 35 cases listed for hearing today by stating that :
“I have to attend personal compelling circumstances today. Therefore, I am not able to attend today’s proceedings. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the case may kindly be adjourned to any convenient date. For this act of kindness, the petitioner shall be grateful.” 3. The said request was rejected in the light of the factual matrix as available on record in the context of the aforementioned ground. Similarly assessee's adjournment was also rejected considering the material on record. 4. A perusal of the order shows that the additions made by the Assessing Officer which were challenged in appeal before the CIT(A) were dismissed as the assessee remained unrepresented before the CIT(A). Relying upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holkar, reported in 223 ITR 480 (MP) among others, the appeal was dismissed ex-parte. 5. Aggrieved by this, the appeal has been filed. Specific ground No. 2 is being taken up for consideration.
6. A perusal of para-4 of the impugned order shows that various opportunities were given to the assessee, however, despite the same the assessee remain unrepresented. It is further seen that the address before the Assessing Officer was that ;
Page 2 of 4 ITA No.7590 /Del/2019 Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
6.1 The address mentioned in the impugned order, it is seen is shown to be as under :
M/s. Good Life Impex Pvt. Ltd. Flat No.3C, 76/3, Chrisopher Road, Kolkata-700 046.
6.2 It is further seen that in the memo appeals filed before the ITAT the address for sending notices etc. has been shown as under:
D-13, Bhagwan Dass Nagar, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110 026. 6.3 Accordingl y, it appears that lack of representation may have been on account of confusion/change of address etc. Notwithstanding this fact, even otherwise the order passed does not meet the statutory requirements as set out in sub section (6) of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The provision mandates that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority not only should be in writing but should also state the points for determination; the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. These requirements in the facts of the present case, it is seen are not met. The relevant provision is extracted hereunder for the sake of completeness : Section 250 – Procedure in appeal. xx x xx x
(6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.
Page 3 of 4 ITA No.7590 /Del/2019 Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
6.4 As noticed earlier, even otherwise the benefit of doubt can be given to the assessee for remaining unrepresented due to lack of communication arising on account of change of address etc.
7. Accordingly, for the reasons set out hereinabove in the interests of substantial justice, the impugned order is set aside and remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Said order was pronounced at the time of virtual hearing itself in the presence of the parties via Webex.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 07TH September, 2021.