Sh. Uttam Singh L/H Smt. Mahinder Kaur, Yamunanagar V. ITO, W-3, Yamunanagar

ITA 1111/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0649 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAYA INDER SINGH SIDHU A DDL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIBHOUR GARG
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Tangible material; Set aside
• Section: 54B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B,CHANDIGARH . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1111/CHD/2019 ! / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI UTTAM SINGH, LH SMT. MAHINDER KAUR, VILL. RATAULI, TEH. JAGADHARI, DISTT. YAMUNANAGAR '# THE ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR $ % ./PAN NO: CDGPK4307K $&/ APPELLANT ()$& /RESPONDENT HEARING THOUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING *+ , - /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIBHOUR GARG, CA , - / REVENUE BY : SHRI DAYA INDER SINGH SIDHU, A DDL.CIT. . / , +0% /DATE OF HEARING : 09.06.2020 12! , +0% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.06 .2020 / ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.6.2019 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, LUDHIANA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ITA NO. 1111-C-2019 SHRI UTTAM SINGH, YAMUNANAGAR 2 1. BECAUSE THE ACTION FOR INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS UNREASONABLE SINCE WITHOUT NOTICING THE DISTINCT ION AMONGST THE WORDS, REASONS TO SUSPECT, DISTINGUISHA BLE FROM REASONS TO BELIEF AS CONTAINED U/S 147. FURTHER THE RE IS NO APPLICATION OF INDEPENDENT MIND BY AO. REASONS RECO RDED ARE VAGUE, LACKING TANGIBLE MATERIAL/ REASONABLE CA USE AND JUSTIFICATION. 2. BECAUSE THE ACTION IS UNDER CHALLENGE ON FACTS & LA W FOR NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL ON THE BA SIS THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS NOT SIGNED BY THE AS SESSEE RESULTING TECHNICALITY SUPERSEDING THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE & DEFEATING THE PROCEDURE OF LAW. 3. BECAUSE THE ACTION IS UNDER CHALLENGE ON FACTS & LA W IN MAKING ADDITION TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS PER CO ST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981 DETERMINED AS PER SUB- REGISTRAR INFORMATION ONLY BASED ON PURCHASE / SALE OF SOME DISTINGUISHABLE GOVT, APPROVED VALUER. 4. BECAUSE THE ACTION IS UNDER CHALLENGE ON FACTS & LA W, FOR DECLINING EXEMPTION U/S 54B FOR INVESTMENT OF RS.3,72,99,094/-(PROPORTIONATE) IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND OVERLOOKING THAT APPELLATE AUTHORI TY HAS THE POWER TO GIVE CLAIMS AND DEDUCTIONS TO ASSESSEE WHI CH HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED OR INADVERTENTLY NOT BEING TAKEN A T THE TIME PURSUANT TO CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 14 DT. 11.04.1955 & C HOPRA BROS (P&H). ADDITIONALLY THE QUANTUM OF EXEMPTION U /S 54B IS UNDER CHALLENGE. 6. BECAUSE THE ACTION IS UNDER CHALLENGE ON FACTS & LAW, FOR REVISING, COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,31,82,975/- WHILE DECLINING THE ALLOWANCE OF E XEMPTION U/S 54B. 7. BECAUSE THE ACTION IS UNDER CHALLENGE ON FACTS & LAW, FOR DECLINING THE GRANTING OF STATUTORY DEDUCTION PERMI TTED UNDER THE ACT, WHILE ARRIVING AT THE CHARGEABLE INCOME U/ S 5 OF THE ITA NO. 1111-C-2019 SHRI UTTAM SINGH, YAMUNANAGAR 3 ACT ACCORDING TO WHICH THE BANK INTEREST (RS.44,188 /-) IS BELOW THE LIMIT OF CHARGEABILITY OF TAX. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHICH IS AN EX-PARTE ORDER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EARLIER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CASE LIED WITH THE CIT(A), PANCHKULA. THE CASE WAS THEREAFTER TRANSFERRED TO CIT(A), LUDHIANA , HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE DATE FIXED BY THE CIT(A), LUDHIANA. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, COULD N OT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE CASE WAS DECIDED EX-PARTE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A FAIR CASE ON MERITS. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE MAY BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A). 6. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR ALTHOUGH SU PPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT T HE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN T HE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE I MPUGNED ORDER EX- PARTE AND NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTI ATE THAT THE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE , BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE DEEM IT APP ROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE ITA NO. 1111-C-2019 SHRI UTTAM SINGH, YAMUNANAGAR 4 THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A), TO BE A DJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 11.6.2020. SD/- SD/- ( . . / N.K. SAINI) ( ! ' / SANJAY GARG) #$% / VICE PRESIDENT &' / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 11.06.2020 .. 3,(+45 65!+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $& / THE APPELLANT 2. ()$& / THE RESPONDENT 3. . 7+ / CIT 4. . 7+ ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. 58(+9 , 09 , :;<= / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. <>/ / GUARD FILE 3 . / BY ORDER, ? / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR