TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1376
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, for the sake of brevity and convenience, the grounds of appeal raised in ITA No. 5156/Del/2013, are reproduced below: i. The order passed by the CIT (A) is erroneous and contradictory both on facts and in law and required to be set aside on this ground itself. ii. The order passed by the CIT (A) as the successor in office to his predecessor (who had heard the appeal partly) without giving any fresh opportunity of being heard, to the appellant, is not only violative of the principles of natural justice but a nullity in law and deserves to be set aside on these grounds. iii. The CIT (A) in fact did not hear the appeal but merely recorded the attendance of the company's employee who was neither competent to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10(23C)(iv) being aware of the fact that the said order had been quashed by the Delhi High Court to be made afresh. viii. That the claim for exemption u/s 11 has been rejected on non- existent and erroneous grounds whereas the appellant has complied with the requirements of section 11 to 13 and was entitled to the benefit of the said provision. ix. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds and without prejudice to the main argument that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s 11 both on facts and in law the CIT (A) erred in disallowing depreciation on the assets purchased and put to use in the years prior to the assessment year under appeal. x. The CIT(A) further erred in upholding the action of the AO i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."the Act") was withdrawn by the ld. Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi on 22.02.2012. Relying on this order, learned Assessing Officer withdrawn the exemption granted under Section 11 of the Act in respect of the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. Aggrieved against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Simultaneously, the assessee challenged the order dated 22.02.2012 of the ld. Director General of Income Tax (Exemption) before the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) bearing WP(C) No. 3598/2010. The said writ petition was allowed by the Hon'ble Court on 11.04.2013 remanding the matter back to the ld. Director General of Income Tax (Exem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the AO's orders denying exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Hamdard contends that the CIT(A) passed the said orders dated 10.07.2013 without providing an opportunity of oral hearing to Hamdard. It is contended that the CIT(A) has passed the order without taking into consideration its submissions. The Revenue, on the other hand, defends the impugned orders on the ground that the CIT(A)'s predecessor had given several opportunities of hearing to Hamdard, and that the case was heard on 08.07.2013 by the CIT(A) who passed the impugned orders. 109. This Court holds that the second Respondent, acting as the CIT(A), has passed the impugned orders dated 10.07.2013 in violation of the principles of the natural justice, without having g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thdrawal of Hamdard's exemption under Section 10 (23C)(iv) dated 22.02.2012, does not even find mention in the four impugned orders, notwithstanding that this fact was highlighted by Hamdard in its written submissions dated 06.05.2013. The case law cited by Hamdard in its written submissions of the said date also do not find any mention in the impugned orders. This Court cannot go into the propriety of Hamdard's submission that the second Respondent got orders dated 28.06.2013 and 08.07.2013 signed by Hamdard's representative on a false pretext. However, the other facts discussed above are sufficient to establish that the second Respondent violated principles of natural justice in passing the impugned orders. Even on merits, it is apparent ....