INDU SHARMA,PATHANKOT V. ITO W-2, PATHANKOT

ITA 396/ASR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Indu Sharma, the appellant, contesting an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A), Delhi, which arose from an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Pathankot. The appellant challenged the order on the grounds of violation of natural justice, as it was passed ex-parte without any notice for a hearing, which is a requirement under section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not addressed the grounds of appeal on merits and had dismissed the appeal in a casual manner, which was not in accordance with the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471771 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Corporate International Finance Service Ltd. v. ITO, CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 250; 251

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 396/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Indu Sharma, W/o Sh. Deepak Sharma, Vill. Sultanpur, Tehsil Pathankot, Punjab 145001 [PAN: DTAPS 2811B] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bathinda (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Sh. Gulzar Ahmad Wani, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 18.09.2024 08.10.2024 ORDER Per Dr. MithaLal Meena, AM: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A), Delhi dated 18.06.2024 which is arising out of the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 28.12.2019 passed by ITO, Ward 4(4), Pathankot in respect of 2 ITA No. 396/Asr/2024 Indu Sharma v. ITO Assessment Year: 2012-13 challenging therein the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in gross violation of the principles of natural justice ex-parte qua the assessee. 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee Sh. Jorawar Singh Bhasin has stated that the ld. CIT(A) has grossly misdirected himself in law in dismissing the assessee’s appeal without issuing any notice whatsoever fixing the case for hearing of appeal, as mandated by section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee in gross violation of principles of natural justice and thus, the assessee has been denied an opportunity of being heard to substantiate the grounds of appeal with written submission. The ld. AR has contended that the assessee having put to undue harassment by such arbitrary and illegal order, the assessee prays that the CIT(A) may be awarded appropriate cost in the matter. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Addl. CIT DR stands by the impugned order, however he has no objection to the request of the AR in remanding back the matter to the CIT(A). 4. We heard both the sides, perused the record, impugned order and case law cited before us. It is undisputed fact that the ld. NFAC, Delhi has rejected 3 ITA No. 396/Asr/2024 Indu Sharma v. ITO the appeal of the assessee by passing order ex-parte qua the assessee, without issuing any notice whatsoever fixing the case for hearing of appeal, as mandated by section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A) has merely stated the observation of the AO based on Inspector’s report regarding Banjar Land being not under cultivation and held it chargeable to Capital Gains Tax without issuing any notice of hearing to the appellant as per record. The facts of non-issue of notice u/s 250(1) is an undisputed fact on record and remained unrebutted by the department. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned the factum of issue and service of statutory notice u/s 250(1)on the appellant assessee, in the impugned order. Meaning thereby that the Ld. NFAC has rejected the appeal without granting adequate opportunity of being heard in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. We know that as per provisions of the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act, the CIT(A) is required to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the assessment order before him whether the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT (A) to dismiss the appeal ex-parte for non- prosecution in violation without granting opportunity. In our view, the Ld. 4 ITA No. 396/Asr/2024 Indu Sharma v. ITO CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 6. In the judgment delivered by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Corporate International Finance Service Ltd. v. ITO (supra) following Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 240 taxman 133 for the proposition that Ld. CIT(A) is required to apply her mind to all issues which arise from impugned order before her whether or not same had been raised by appellant before her; and further, that CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits, held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the Assessee in limine for non-prosecution. 7. In respect of the assessment year under consideration, the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restore it to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order stand withdrawn with effect from 1st June 2001. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. Therefore, just as it is not open to the Assessing Officer to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CTT(A) to dismiss the appeal ex-parte without addressing all the 5 ITA No. 396/Asr/2024 Indu Sharma v. ITO grounds of appeal on merits of the case. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. In the present case the appellant has raised multiple grounds on legal issues and merits of the case and the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to address the grounds raised before him by the appellant. Such a cryptic order passed in casual manner by the CIT(A) is deprecated and liable for imposition of cost on account of gross violation of statutory provisions of law and principles of natural justice and increase to the cost of litigation to the appellant. However, we restrain ourselves to impose the cost as requested by the appellant and direct the Ld. CIT(A) to be more cautious in adjudicating the appeals as per mandate by following principles of natural justice. Under the facts and circumstances, we consider it deem fit to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to adjudicate the appeal de novo addressing all the issues raised in the grounds of appeal after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant who shall cooperate before the CIT(A). 8. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to pass de novo order as per law, in accordance with Sections 250 and 251 of I.T. Act. 6 ITA No. 396/Asr/2024 Indu Sharma v. ITO 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 on 08/10/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Udayan Dasgupta) (Dr. Mitha Lal Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order "