ITAT application should be heard afresh if the applicant was not given a fair chance to represent his case: High Court of Delhi

S 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 6370 2021 & CM APPL.20030 2021 ANKIT KAPOOR Petitioner Through: Mr. P. Roychaudhari Advocate. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 63 4 & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue. Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar Advocate for R 2 ITAT. Date of Decision: 23rd July 2021 HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA JUDGMENT MANMOHAN J:The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. Present writ petition has been filed challenging t he order dat ed 27 th February 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalin Miscellaneous Application No. 183 2019. Petitioner also seeks a direction to W.P.(C) 6370 2021 the ITAT to hear the said Miscellaneous Application afresh. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the impugned order was passed by Respondent No. 2 without mentioning the matter in the cause list because of which the Petitioner was unable t o present h is case an d it h as caused grave prejudice to the Petitioner. He states that the Miscellaneous Application was heard on 14th February 2020 and it was listed for further hearing on 28th Febru ary 2020. He further points out that on 28th February 2020 the Petitioner did not fin d his matter in the cause list and was informed by the Registry that his m atter had already been heard on 21st February 2020 an d was dism issed on 27 th February 2020. Learned counsel for the Petitioner st ates t hat t he Im pugned Order deserves to be quashed as the Petitioner did not get adequate and fair opportunity to represent his case. He contends that Pet itioner was u n der a bonafide belief that his case will be taken up for hearing on 28 th Febru ary 2020 as pronounced in the Court on the last date of hearing i.e. 14th February 2020. Issue notice. 7. Mr. Zoheb Hossain learned senior standing counsel for Revenue accepts notice. He states that he has no instructions in the matt er. He however states that non publication of daily cause list is causing inconvenience to the litigants. 8. Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj learned standing counsel for Respon dent No.2 ITAT has placed on record a letter dated 15th July 2021 containing the instructions that he has received. The relevant port ion of t h e said let ter is reproduced herein below: W.P.(C) 6370 2021 this connection “…. Sub: Writ Petition filed before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi. W.P. 6370 2021 & CM APPL.2030 2021 in the case of Shri Ankit Kapoor vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 63(4) & ANR Sir With reference to the captioned matter I am directed to narrate the facts of the case to you to appraise the Hon ble Court of the same which are as under: 1. In the aforesaid MA No. 183 Del 2019 was filed on 8 3 19 and put up before the bench on 13.6.19. The bench directed to register the M.A. on 17.9.19. The case was listed on 20.9.19 for 18.10.19 and adjourned for 1.11.19 on which day the matter was adjourned for 13.12.19 at the request of the counsel. The case was again listed for hearing on 07.02.2020 on which date Shri Raj Kumar Gupta Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Bench. On the said date the counsel sought time from the bench for filing an affidavit of Shri P. Roychaudhuri Advocate . The case was adjourned by the bench to 21.02.2020 copy of order sheet is enclosed for kind perusal. is submitted that 2. It is intimated that due to clerical error the matter was not reflected in the cause list of 21.02.2020 but since the case was noted by the counsel before the Bench the matter was taken up by the bench on 21.02.2020 and since none appeared on the behalf of the assessee even after noting the case the matter was heard and order pronounced by the bench on 27.02.2020. Although the matter was not listed in the Friday list published before the date of hearing due to oversight the same was included in the revised list displayed on the notice board and mentioned in the revised list before the bench comprising Shri Bhavnesh Saini JM and Shri BRR Kumar AM6370 2021 4. Your goodself is requested to appraise the Hon ble High Court of the facts of the case. 5. You are further requested to make a submission before the Hon ble Court that the Tribunal is not interested in the outcome of the assessee s Writ Appeal and will respectfully carry out the orders which may ultimately be passed by the Hon’ble High Court. Sd Assistant Registrar ITAT New Delhi” Though from the aforesaid letter it is apparent that t he pet itioner’s matter had been adjourned to 21st February 2020 on 07th February 2020 yet this Court is of the view that the petitioner did not have adequ ate n otice or fair opportunity to represent his case as neither the daily order sheets nor the revised cause list had been uploaded on the website of the ITAT. Consequently the impugned order dated 27th February 2020 passed by t h e ITAT in Miscellaneous Application No.183 2019 is set aside and t he ITAT is directed to hear the said Miscellaneous Application afresh. 10. This Court is also of the view that non publication of daily order sheets as well as the revised cause list on the website by the ITAT results in inconvenience to the litigants in general and to the lawyers in particular. 11. Accordingly this Court directs the ITAT to u pload t he daily order sheets and revised cause list on its website. System in this regard be pu t in place by the ITAT if not already there as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months. 12. With the aforesaid direction the present writ petition along with pending application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 6370 2021 13. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e mail JULY 23 2021 MANMOHAN J NAVIN CHAWLA J W.P.(C) 6370 2021 

Summary: In an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal application where the applicant did not have adequate notice or a fait opportunity to represent his case, the Tribunal will be directed to set aside the order and hear the application afresh. This was held by a two member bench of the High Court of Delhi consisting of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla in the case of Ankit Kapoor v the Income Tax Officer, Ward 63 &amp; Another [W.P.(C) 6370/2021 &amp; APPL .20030/2021] on the 23rd of Jult 2021. The application was heard on the 14th of February 2020 and then listed for further hearing on the 28th of February 2020. However on 28th February, the matter was not listed on the cause list and the petitioner was informed by the registry that his matter had already been heard on 21st February 2020 and was dismissed on 27th February 2020. The petitioner, Ankit Kapoor stated that the impugned order was passed by The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal who is Respondent No.2 without mentioning it the matter on the cause list this has therefore caused grave prejudice against him. Accordingly the petitioner contends that the impugned order deserves to be quashed as he did not get an adequate and fair opportunity to represent his case. The petitioner further contended that he was under a bonafide belief that his case will be taken up for hearing on 28th February as pronounced in the court on the previous hearing and had no reason to believe otherwise. The counsel representing Respondent No.2 submitted that not reflecting the matter in the cause list of 21st February 2020 was due to a clerical error but since the case was noted by the counsel before the bench, the matter was taken up early and as no one appearied on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was heard and dismissed. It was also added that the Income Tax Appeal Tribunal is not interested in the outcome of the writ appeal and will carry out the orders of the High Court, whatever it may be. The senior standing counsel for revenue accepts notice and stated that the non-publication of daily cause list would indeed cause inconvenience for the litigants.