RUCHI POWER AND STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. MID INDIA ENGINEERING PVT.LTD.) MUMBAI vs ACIT-6(3) MUMBAI

आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील य अपील य अपील य अपील य अ धकरण अ धकरण अ धकरण अ धकरण, मंबई मंबई मंबई मंबई ु यायपीठ यायपीठ यायपीठ यायपीठ ‘डी’ मंबई मंबई मंबई मंबई ु । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D" BENCH, MUMBAI सवी डी. म मोहन, उपा#य$ एवं एवं एवं एवं ी बी. राजे( )संह, लेखा सद,य के सम$ । Before Shri D.

Manmohan, Vice President and Shri Rajendra Singh, Accountant Member ITA No.

4689/Mum/2011 (-नधारण -नधारण -नधारण -नधारण वष वष वष वष / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Ruchi Power and Steel Industies Ltd.

A C I T - 6(3) (formerly M/s.

Mid India Enginering P Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.

Road 621, Tulsiani Chambers बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम/ Vs.

Mumbai 400020 Nariman Point , Mumbai 400021 ,थायी लेखा सं./PAN - AAACM 7130 L अपीलाथ0 / Appellant 12यथ0 / Respondent अपीलाथ0 ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal/ Shri Gaurav Bansal 12यथ0 क4 ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Satbir Singh सनवाई ु क4 तार ख / Date of Hearing : 26.06.2012 घोषणा क4 तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2012 आदेश / O R D E R Per D.

Manmohan, V.P.

This appeal arises out of the order dated 08.02.2011 passed by the CIT(A) 12, Mumbai and it pertains to A.Y.

2007-08.

2.

The case of the assessee is that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of being heard and hence the order passed by the CIT(A) is in violation of principles of natural justice.

In this regard he filed an affidavit of the counsel, notice of hearing issued by the office of the CIT(A) and copy of the adjournment letter submitted before the CIT(A), which clearly depicts that the case was listed for hearing on 18.02.2011 and since counsel would be away from town on the said date a request was made for granting adjournment and accordingly the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax granted adjournment to 08.03.2011 but to their utter surprise an order was passed on 08.02.2011 without hearing the counsel.

It was also submitted ITA No.

4689/Mum/2011 Ruchi Power and Steel Industies Ltd.

2 that the appeal for A.Y. l for A.Y.

2006-07 was argued by the counsel and inadvertently the CIT(A) – 12 disposed of the subsequent year’s appeal also on 08.02.2011.

3.

The learned D.R. could not controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel.

4.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case we are of the view that the order passed by the CIT(A) is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

As announced in the open court, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct him to reconsider the issue afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed. प8रणामतः -नधा8रती क4 अपील ,वीकत ृ क4 जाती है । Order pronounced in the open court on 26th June 2012. आदेश क4 धोषणा खलेु यायालय म< =दनांकः 26.06.2012 को क4 गई । Sd/- Sd/- (Rajendra Singh) (D.

Manmohan) लेखा सद,य /Accountant Member उपा#य$/Vice President मंबुई Mumbai; =दनांक Dated: 26th June 2012 व.-न.स./ n.p., Sr.

PS आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश क4 क4 क4 क4 1-त)ल@प 1-त)ल@प 1-त)ल@प 1-त)ल@प अAे@षत अAे@षत अAे@षत अAे@षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ0 / The Appellant 2.

12यथ0 / The Respondent.

3. आयकर आयB ु (अपील) / The CIT(A)- 12, 4. आयकर आयB ु / CIT - 6, 5. @वभागीय 1-त-न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंबई ु / DR “D” Bench, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. * Dictation pad attached आदेशानसार आदेशानसार ु / BY ORDER, स2या@पत 1-त //True Copy// उप उप उप उप/सहायक सहायक सहायक सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार पंजीकार पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

Registrar) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील य अपील य अपील य अपील य अ धकरण अ धकरण अ धकरण अ धकरण, मंबई ु / ITAT, Mumbai