M/s Sunkraft Designs, Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 1122/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5154 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C CHANDERKANTA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1122/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S SUNKRAFT DESIGNS, VS. THE CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. ABUFS2402H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : MS. C.CHANDERKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 23.05.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.05.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2016 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)-1 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], LUDHIANA. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE INVI TING OUR ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS AN EX PARTE ORDER. THE LD. AR. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAVI MALLICK, PARTNER OF THE ASS ESSEE FIRM WHEREIN IT HAS 2 BEEN DEPOSED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENGAGED SHRI BRI J MOHAN SHARMA, ADVOCATE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE CIT(A). H OWEVER, THE SAID SHRI BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE DATES FIXED FOR HEARING. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER DEPOSED IN THE SAID AF FIDAVIT THAT EVEN ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. 24.8 .2016, WHICH INCIDENTALLY IS ALSO THE DATE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, AS NO NOTIC E WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SAID DATE OF HEARING. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON STIP ULATED DATE OF HEARING WHICH RESULTED IN AN EX PARTE ORDER AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(A). HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMS TANCES IN THE CASE OF RAVI MALLICK, THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE E FIRM, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE CIT(A). THE AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST HIS CA SE ON MERITS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 3. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE S HOULD HAVE BEEN VIGILANT IN PURSUING HIS MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WILL BE WELL SERVED, IF, TH E ASSESSEE IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST HIS CASE ON MERITS BEFORE CI T(A). EVEN UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF RAVI MALLICK, PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. 3 WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED EX PARTE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO DEC IDE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS AFTER GIVING ASSESSEE A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO ATTEND HIS CASE BEFORE LD. C IT(A) AS AND WHEN CALLED FOR AND FULLY COOPERATE IN THE PROCEEDING BEFORE TH E CIT(A). WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.05.2017 SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 25 TH MAY, 2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR