M/s Mahalakshmi Rice & Gen. Mills, Jagaron V. ITO, Jagaron

ITA 1061/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64118 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, A.M AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M ITA NO. 1061/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S MAHALAKSHMI RICE V I.T.O. WARD III & GEN MILLS MOGA VPO HATHUR HQ JAGRAON JAGRAON AAGFM 6190 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N.K. SAINI DATE OF HEARING 26..12.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 .12.2012 O R D E R PER T.R.SOOD, A.M THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA DATED 30.8.2012. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL DUE TO NON-ATTENDANCE WHICH AS A MATTER OF F ACT, NO NOTICES FOR HEARING THE CASE WERE RECEIVED BY TH E APPELLANT. 2 NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT PASS ING THE ORDER ON MERITS OF THE CASE BY CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTS/PAPERS ON RECORD. 3 THAT EVEN THE CONFIRMATION OF LEVY OF PENALTY BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS INCORRECT BECAUSE THE VERY BASIS OF L EVY OF PENALTY ON THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME CANNOT BE AGROUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF PENALT Y U/S 271(1)(C). 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER RECEIVED A NOTICE AND T HEREFORE, 2 THERE WAS NO QUESTION TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS. I N ANY CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN ORDER IN LIMINE WITHOU T PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY. THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE SET AS IDE. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SI MPLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAD MENTIONED THAT THE FIRST NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 5.2.2011 AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARI NG ON 14.12.2011. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT MENTIONED WHETHER T HE NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE OR NOT? IN ANY CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE CASE ON MERITS WHICH IS NOT PROPER. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MAT TER BACK TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE O N MERITS AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. TH E ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE BY ATTENDING THE PROC EEDINGS. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 .12.2012. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED : 28.12. 2012 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR 3