Tally for CAs in Industry Silver Edition (Single User) Tally Renewal (Auditor Edition) Need Tally for Clients? (Tie-up with us!!!)
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Shri Ramit Vohra, Prop. M/s. Impact Enterprises, 9210/5, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Circle : 63 (1) New Delhi.
 Smt. Bhavana Jain, Prop. M/s Akash Metal Industries, outside Barsi Gate, Hansi, Haryana Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hisar, Haryana
 M/s Pearey Lal & Sons (E.P.) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Vs. ACIT, Rohtak.
 Rajvanti Devi R/o Liwan Sonipat w/o Phool Kumar 96, R Model Town, Sonipat. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Sonipat.
 M/s. Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Good Life Impex Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Income Tax Officer(E), Ward 6(2), (Old Jurisdiction)
 Ram Naresh Sikarwar, Ballabgarh. Vs. ITO, Ward-II(2), Faridabad.
 District Manager, HAFED, Site No.01, Opp.Main Market, Sector-5, Kurukshetra, Haryana Vs. JCIT, TDS Range, Karnal, Haryana
 Ravi Kumar Verma C/o. Pushkar Jain, Advocate, 115-C, Jain Nagar, Merut City-2 Uttar Pradesh Vs. ACIT Circle-2 Mewat
 Poonam Jain, A-2/15, F.F., Phase-3 Ashok Vihar, New Delhi Vs. Ito, Ward 34(4), Room No. 713, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, New Delhi
 AKT IMPEX PVT. LTD., D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI Vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), NEW DELHI
 Nitin Gupta Shree Ji Jewellers, Shop No. 1168/3 and 4, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk Vs. ITO Ward-47(4) New Delhi
 MG Metalloy Pvt. Ltd, B-16, Sector-2, Noida Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida
 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 36(1), New Delhi. Vs. Shri Bharat Bhushan Sawhney, C-56, New Sabzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi.
 MR. SUBHASH CHANDER, C/O SURAJ BHAN NAIN, ADVOCATE, H.NO. 203, SECTOR-27, GURUGRAM, HARYANA Vs. ITO, WARD-4, HISAR

Rajvanti Devi R/o Liwan Sonipat w/o Phool Kumar 96, R Model Town, Sonipat. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Sonipat.
September, 08th 2021

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI

BEFORE,
SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

I.T.A No.6099/Del/2019
(ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12)

Rajvanti Devi Income Tax Officer,
R/o Liwan Sonipat
w/o Phool Kumar Ward-5,
96, R Model Town,
Sonipat. Vs. Sonipat.

PAN-AWVPD 5068N (Respondent)
(Appellant)

Appellant By None (Application Rejected)

Respondent by Sh. R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 16.08.2021

Date of Pronouncement 07/09/2021

Hearing conducted via Webex
ORDER

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the
correctness of the order dated 22.04.2019 of CIT(A)-6, Rohtak pertaining to
2011-12 assessment year is assailed on various grounds including lack of
proper notice and also on the specific ground that the order is passed before
the date of hearing itself. Ground No.2 for the sake of completeness is
extracted hereunder:

“2. That the action of the Ld. CIT(A) Rohtak for not providing proper
opportunity of being heard and dismissing the appeal on the basis that no
representation has been made by the assessee, despite the fact that notices
of hearing never received by the assessee in person through post. The order
ITA No.6099 /Del/2019
Rajvanti Devi vs. ITO

passed on 14.03.2019 whereas it is mentioned that hearing was
fixed on 03.06.2019 and on 13.06.2019. The order is passed before
the date of hearing. Hence, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) is against the
cardinal principle of natural justice and accordingly order deserves to be
quashed.”

[emphasis supplied]

2. At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee

but an adjournment application was moved stating that the assessee is in not

the position to contact her Authorized Representative. In view of the patent

procedural deficiency noted in the impugned order as it could not stand in the

eyes of law the adjournment application was rejected. The appeal was heard

ex-parte qua the assessee appellant on merits after hearing the Ld. Sr. DR and

it was directed that the issue is being restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh

consideration.

3. A perusal of the order shows that the assessee before the CIT(A)
remained unrepresented. It is seen that the additions made in the order passed
u/s 147/144 were assailed and ultimately in view of the fact that the assessee
remained unrepresented, the appeal was dismissed referring to the decisions of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tukoji Rao Holkar vs. CWT [1997] 233
ITR 480 Holakar and CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and CIT vs. Multiplan (India)
Ltd. 38 ITD (Del.) 320 etc.

4. A perusal of the order shows that the Ld. CIT(A) in page 2 of the

impugned order notes that “the case was again re-fixed for 13.06.2019

Page 2 of 3
ITA No.6099 /Del/2019
Rajvanti Devi vs. ITO

(Final opportunity). However, it is seen that the order was passed on
14.03.2019”. Thus, patently the order was passed without giving due notice to
the assessee; and without hearing the assessee before the date of hearing,
itself. Such an order cannot be upheld. The impugned order accordingly, open
to the “charge” of bias, prejudice and arbitrariness is set aside and the issues
are restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a
speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee, in its own interests, is
directed to ensure full and proper participation before the First Appellate
Authority and not abuse the trust reposed. Said order was pronounced at the
time of virtual hearing itself in the presence of the parties Webex.

5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced on 07th September, 2021.

Dated: 07/09/2021 Sd/-
PK/Ps
Kavita Arora, SPS (DIVA SINGH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
2. Respondent ITAT NEW DELHI
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT

Page 3 of 3

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2021 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting