Satwinder Pal Singh, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-6(3), Ludhiana

ITA 1040/CHANDI/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Satwinder Pal Singh against the order of the CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal was related to a cash deposit of Rs. 10,05,500 made in the State Bank of Patiala during the Financial Year 2010-11, for which the Assessee did not file an Income Tax Return (ITR). Notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued to the Assessee, but there was no compliance. Both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) dismissed the case ex-parte due to non-compliance by the Assessee. The Tribunal noted the absence of the Assessee at the hearing and the return of the notice with the remark 'Add. Left India', but decided to remand the case for a fresh hearing on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127837 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2019
• Other Referred Cases: S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ, च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1040/CHD/2019 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sh. Satwinder Pal Singh, H.No.629, Jawaddi Kalan, Ludhiana 141002 Vs. बनाम The ITO, Ward 6(3), Ludhiana थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: BBIPS8325J अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क ओर से/Assessee by : None राज व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Akashdeep, JCIT, Sr.DR स ु नवाई क तार$ख/Date of Hearing : 16.05.2023 उदघोषणा क तार$ख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.05.2023 आदेश/Order Per A.D. Jain, Vice President: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order dated 22.05.2019 of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana [herein referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Briefly, the facts, as per record are that there was a cash deposit of Rs. 10,05,500/- with the State Bank of Patiala for the F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12, but the Assessee has not filed the ITR. Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was issued, which was sent by speed post to the Assessee, to 1040-Chd-20192 – Satwinder Pal Singh, Ludhiana 2 explain the aforesaid cash deposit, but there was no compliance from the Assessee. Thereafter, the AO issued various statutory notices to the Assessee to appear before him, but on the dates fixed for hearing, there was no compliance from the Assessee to represent his case. Therefore, the AO proceeded to pass the assessment order by observing that the Assessee has failed to give any explanation regarding the source of the cash deposit with the State Bank of Patiala and, accordingly, assessed the income of the Assessee. The AO has passed the assessment order dated 19.12.2018 u/s 144 r.w.s. section 147 of Act ex-parte qua the Assessee. 3. Similarly, before the Ld. CIT(A), though, notices of hearing for three different dates, i.e., 11.3.2019, 24.4.2019 and 14.5.2019 were sent to appear before the ld. CIT(A), the Assessee failed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) on any of the dates fixed for hearing. Resultantly, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessee was provided numerous opportunities, but all remained un-complied with and observed that the Assessee had nothing to explain in support of his contention. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by passing an ex-parte order . 4. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the Assessee. We find that the matter was fixed for hearing on 16.05.2023 and the date of hearing was duly intimated to the Assessee at the address furnished 1040-Chd-20192 – Satwinder Pal Singh, Ludhiana 3 by the Assessee in Form No. 36. However, the Notice of hearing has been received back with the postal remark “Add. Left India”. Finding that the matter can be proceeded with in the absence of the Assessee, we have heard the ld. DR. 6. We have gone through the orders of the AO as well as CIT(A) and find that the appeal of the Assessee has been dismissed ex-parte at both the levels. We further find that the ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte by merely sustaining the addition made by the AO, without considering the material available on record, as also without going into the merits of the case. As such, an opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the Assessee to represent his case fully before the lower authorities. Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.)] and incumbent on the authority to decide an appeal on merit. The ld. D.R., though, has placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below, but has no objection if the matter is remanded to the AO for adjudication afresh. 7. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer, to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the AO. All pleas available 1040-Chd-20192 – Satwinder Pal Singh, Ludhiana 4 under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed. Order pronounced on 19.05.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( A.D. JAIN ) Accountant Member Vice President Dated : 19.05.2023 “आर.के.” आदेश क त*ल+प अ,े+षत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent 3. आयकर आय ु 1त/ CIT 4. +वभागीय त न5ध, आयकर अपील$य आ5धकरण, च7डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar