Etisha Finance Investment P. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)Brief Facts of the case:
The brief facts of the case are the E-Return declaring NIL income was filed by the assessee on 30th September, 2009. Thesame was processed under section 143(2) of the Act. Notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 27.9.2010 and served upon the assessee.
After going through the documents, AO has completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the I.T.Act, making the additions of Rs. 60,00,000/- on account of unexplained credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the I.T.Act, made additions Rs. 60,00,000/- on account of unexplained creditsu/s 68 of the I.T. Act,1961.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT (A), who dismissed the appeal of theassessee by upholding the action of the AO. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal without going into the ,merit of the case as the assesseee sought adjournment for four times because of the ill health of learned counsel and no body appeared on the final day fixed for hearing.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before ITAT.
Contention of the Assessee:
The assessee contended that. CIT (A) erred in passing the exparte order against the principle ofnatural justice withoutgivingthe proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and submitting his case on merits. Therefore, he requested that the issue in dispute to be sent back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard.
Contention of the Revenue:
The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the assesseee was given sufficient opportunity to put forward his arguments with necessaryevidences by appearing in person or by an authorized representative. The CIT(A) looking continuous adjournments gave final chance to appear for hearing, which was also not attended by the assessee or by its counsel.
Therefore, CIT(A) was right in dismissing assessee’s appeal by holding that the assessee was not serious to exercise its right.
Decision of the ITAT:
The ITAT after hearing the rival submissions observed that on 26.11.2012 the date on which the final opportunity was given by the Ld. CIT (A),a letter has been received from the assessee through speed post stating that their counsel Mr. Sunil Bhansali was having viral fever and hence one month’s time was requested, which the Ld.CIT(A) has not considered and proceeded exparte dismissing the assessee’s appeal.
Keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that CIT (A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee and proceeded exparte qua assessee, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice.
Therefore, the CIT (A)’s order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In the interest of justice; we remand back the issue to the CIT (A) with the direction to decide the same afresh after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to cooperate with the CIT (A) and not to take unnecessary adjournment.
Thus, assessee’s appeal is allowed.