D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd

D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.97/2012C.I.T. Udaipur vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. DATE OF ORDER: 21[st] April 2014 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARIHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr. K.K. Bissa for the appellant. <><><> Though defect No. 2 has not been removed yet, however,while ignoring the defect, we have considered the matter on itsmerits. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant andhaving perused the material placed on record, we are clearly of theview that no substantial question of law is involved and this appealdoes not merit admission. The sum and substance of the matter remains that in theimpugned order dated 13.07.2012 relating to Assessment Year1999-2000, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur['the ITAT'] has upheld the contention on behalf of the assessee thatin the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961['the Act'], copy of reasons was required to be supplied. After findingthat such a contention was indeed canvassed before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur ['the CIT(A)'], theITAT proceeded to set aside the order impugned and remanded thematter to the CIT(A) with directions to provide copy of reasons so asto enable the assessee to file the objections and thereafter, to passfresh speaking order after taking into consideration the objections of the assessee. The ITAT, while adopting the course of restoring thematter to file of CIT(A), has referred to and relied upon the decisionof Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd.vs. ITO: 259 ITR 19, as also the decision of Hon'ble MadhyaPradesh High Court in the case of SICA Educational Trust: 168Taxman (19) MP and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court inthe case of CIT vs A & A Enterprises: IT Appeal No. 822 of 2007,decided on 27.09.2007. The learned counsel for the Revenue is not in a position todispute the position that copy of reasons was required to be suppliedto the assessee. In the given set of facts and circumstances, we find no reasonto consider interference in the order passed by the ITAT restoringthe matter to file of the CIT (A). However, in the interest of justice, wedeem it proper to observe that in relation to the order passed afterremand, obviously the parties shall be at liberty to take recourse tothe appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Subject to the observations foregoing, the appeal standsdismissed. (BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.