M/S. Jagat Talkies Distributors vs Dcit & Another
2011 Latest Caselaw 2481 Del

$~10.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+      WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 12721/2009

                                            Date of order: 9th May, 2011

       M/S. JAGAT TALKIES DISTRIBUTORS       ..... Petitioner
                     Through Mr. Kaanan Kapur, Advocate.

                       versus

       DCIT & ANOTHER                     ..... Respondents
                    Through Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr.
                    Advocate with Mr. Deepak Anand,
                    Advocate.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?



SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

       Several prayers have been made in the present writ

petition but we are not inclined to go into the factual matrix in

view of the order being passed.


2.     Against ex parte assessment orders for the assessment

years 1999-2000 to 2004-2005, which were confirmed by the

CIT(Appeals), the petitioner herein had filed appeals before the

Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (IT No. 1068-1073/Del/2008). It
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 12721/2009                              Page 1 of 3
 may be noticed that these assessment orders were passed

pursuant to issue of notice under Section 147/148 of the

Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) after recording reasons.


3.     The said appeals were listed for hearing before the

tribunal on 5th January, 2009. Notice for hearing was served on

the petitioner but a written application had been filed for

adjournment. It is stated at the Bar by the petitioner that this

was the first date of hearing. The tribunal refused to adjourn the

matter without prior intimation and disposed of the appeals on

merits remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer vide order

dated 5th January, 2009.               Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the matter should have been adjourned and one

opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner to

present his case before the tribunal and the matter was

proceeded with great haste and hurry. In view the aforesaid

facts and specially the fact that the appeals were listed before

the tribunal for the first time after they were filed and the

petitioner had filed a written application asking for adjournment,

we feel that one opportunity should be granted to the petitioner

to present and argue the appeals before the tribunal. We notice

that the tribunal has made some observations with regard to

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 12721/2009                           Page 2 of 3
 conduct of the petitioner-assessee before the Assessing Officer

and before the CIT (Appeals). The petitioner may have some

explanation, which may or may not be accepted but he should

be heard. Accordingly, we partly allow the present writ petition

and set aside the order dated 5th January, 2009 and direct the

tribunal to decide the aforesaid appeals afresh. To cut short the

delay, the petitioner will appear before the tribunal on 4th July,

2011, when a date of hearing will be given. As the appeals have

been restored, they will be disposed of expeditiously and

preferably within a period of three months from the date of

hearing.


4.     With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed

of. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion

on the merits of the case and contention of the parties.



                                          SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE

MAY 09, 2011 VKR