Sushil Kumar, Kaithal V. ITO, W-2, Kaithal

ITA 1104/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0663 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2018
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.1104/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SUSHIL KUMAR VS. ITO, PROP. M/S POOJA TIMBER STORE, W-2 C/O MANMOHAN GARG(ADVOCATE) KAITHAL- HARYANA 857A2/9, BALAJI MARKET, KAITHAL HARYANA PAN NO. AGDPK9490M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. NAVDIP MONGA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 26/03/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/03/2019 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 15/05/2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A), KARNAL. 2. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ID COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) W AS WRONGLY UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.450000/- ON ACCOUNT OF G.P. 2. THAT THE ID COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) W AS WRONGLY UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.837694/- ON ACCOUNT DISALLOW OF INTEREST U/S 36(1)(LII) OF INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THAT THE ID COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) WA S WRONGLY UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.385510/- ON ACCOUNT DISALLOW OF EXPENSES CONSIDER AS PERSONAL EXP. 4. THAT THE ID COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) W AS WRONGLY UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.73400/- ON ACCOUNT DISALLOW OF E XPENSES INTEREST ON VAT. 5. THAT THE ID COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) W AS WRONGLY UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.150000/- ON ACCOUNT HOUSEHOLD DR AWINGS. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, AL TER OR WITHDRAWN ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE FINAL HEARING. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE E-FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 20/09/2014 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 14,71,850/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1 ) OF THE INCOME 2 TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). L ATER ON THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT AT A N INCOME OF RS. 33,84,700/- BY MAKING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE BY OBSERVING IN PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE NO APPEARANCE IN THIS CASE ALTHOUGH VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN. THE FIRST HEARING NOTICE SENT TO THE APPELLANT ON 14.03.2018 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 11.04.2018 EVOKED NO RESPONSE. A SECOND NOTICE ON 10.04.2018 FIXING THE DATE OF HEAR ING ON 09.05.2018 ALSO INVOKED NO RESPONSE. AFTER THIS, THE NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE BY NOTICE SERVER ON 19.04.2018. STILL THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPLIANCE. IN SPITE OF VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES BEING PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT, NO DOCUMENTS OR EX PLANATIONS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY HIM. IT STRENGTHENS MY BELIEF THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOTHING TO ADD OR SUBMIT IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APP EAL EX-PARTE IN LIMINE AND THAT NO NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 8. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICE FOR HEARING ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX-PARTE . HE SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE BUT NO DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE ISSUES ON MERIT. HE SIMPLY STATED THAT NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 10/04/2018 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 09/05/2018 BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE AND THEREAFTER THE NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSES SEE BY NOTICE SERVER ON 19/04/2018. FROM THE AFORESAID OBSERVATION OF THE L D. CIT(A) IT IS NOT CLEAR WHY NOTICE WAS AGAIN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH T HE NOTICE SERVER ON 19/04/2018 WHEN THE DATE OF HEARING WAS MENTIONED A S 09/05/2018 THROUGH THE EARLIER NOTICE DT. 10/04/2018. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICE SERVED THROUGH NOTICE SERVER, IF ANY, WAS FOR THE SAME DAT E I.E; 09/05/2018 OR ANY OTHER DATE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE COND EMNED, UNHEARD AS PER THE 3 MAXIM, AUDI ALTERAM PERTEM . I THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACT S, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PRO VIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/03/2019). SD/- (N.K. SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT PLACE: CHANDIGARH DATED : 26/03/2019 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR