Sh. Ravinder Kumar Goyal, Sunam V. ITO, Sunam HQ, Sangrur

ITA 1158/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1100 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reason to believe; Set aside
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B , CHANDIGARH , !' # $ % &' , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1158/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SH. RAVINDER KUMAR GOYAL, PROP. M/S GOYAL AUTOMOBILE, RISHTA RESORT, BHATINDA ROAD, SUNAM. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SUNAM, (HQ SANGRUR). ./PAN NO: AAQPG1018E /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, CA / REVENUE BY : SMT.CHANDERKANTA, SR.DR ! /DATE OF HEARING : 16.01.2019 '#$% ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.03.2019 /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, LUDHIANA (IN SHORT CIT(A) DATED 20.6 .2018 PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX AT, 1961 (HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). 2. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE OF MO BILE COUPONS THROUGH HIS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN. IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED AN INCOME OF RS.6,25,070/-. HOWEVER, THE A .O. HAD ITA NO.1158/CHD/2018 A.Y.2010-11 2 INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED INCOME FROM COMMISSION TO THE TUNE OF RS. 42 LACS FOR THE SAID YEAR. CONSEQUENTLY, RE-ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSSED AT RS.15,17,570/-. 3. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED INN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A), WHERE SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE , THE CIT(A) PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER DISMISSING THE ASSE SSEES APPEAL. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS:\ 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-1, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE. 2. THAT NO SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY HAVE BEEN AFFORDED BY THE CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM. 3. THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE SAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING WAS VALID. 4. THAT THERE WAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING OF THE CASE U/S 148 . 5. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.8,92,501/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED COMMISSION INCOME. 6. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL, THE CONFIRMATION OF ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,92,501/- IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. ITA NO.1158/CHD/2018 A.Y.2010-11 3 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT AN IDENTICAL EX-PARTE O RDER HAD BEEN PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PRE CEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2009-10, WHICH HAD BEEN RESTOR ED BACK BY THE I.T.A.T. TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.694/CHD/2018 DATED 4.10.2018. COPY OF THE ORDER WAS PLACED BEFORE US. REFERRING TO THE SAME, THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IN THE SAID CASE IT HAD BEE N PLEADED BEFORE THE I.T.A.T. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEI VED NOTICES FIXING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL AND, THEREFORE, TH E APPEAL COULD NOT BE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE I.T.A.T. NOTED THAT THE CIT(A) DID NOT MENTION THE SPECIFIC DATES WHICH WERE NOT ATTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ACCEPTING THE ORAL UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ORDER WAS SET ASID E TO THE CIT(A). OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA 3.1 OF THE I.T.A.T., WHICH READS AS UNDER: 3.1 IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT IS NOTICED THAT ON 15.09.2017, THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY HIS COUNSEL. THEREAFTER, THE CASE APPARENTLY WAS RE-FIXED FOR HEARING ON TWO DIFFEREN T DATES WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PARTICIPATE LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER. SINCE SPECIFIC DATES ARE NOT MENTIONED IN THE ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSERT IONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NOTICE FOR A SP ECIFIC DATE WAS NOT RECEIVED CANNOT BE ADDRESSED, HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PARTICIP ATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS ALLEGEDLY ON THE GROUND THAT SPECIF IC NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED. ACCORDINGLY, ACCEPTING ORA L UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE ID. AR, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUES ARE RESTORED BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDE R IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. WHILE SO DIRECTING, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IN THE EVENTUALITY OF THE ABUSE OF THE TRUST REPOSED, THE CIT(A) WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS AN ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAIL ABLE ITA NO.1158/CHD/2018 A.Y.2010-11 4 ON RECORD. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT HIS CONTENTIONS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE ALSO THE SAME T HAT THE NOTICES FIXING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THE CIT(A) HAD NOT MENTIONED THE SPECIFIC DATES OF HEARING WHICH WENT UNATTENDED. HE , THEREFORE, STATED THAT THIS APPEAL ALSO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(A) AS IN THE CASE OF PRECEDING ASSESSMENT Y EAR. 7. THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SAME. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUES ARE RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. WE MAY ADD THAT THE CIT(A) WOULD BE AT LIBER TY TO PASS AN ORDER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THE EVENTUALITY THE ASSESSEE ABUSES THE TRUST REPOS ED ON HIM. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- # $ % &' (SANJAY GARG ) ANNAPURNA GUPTA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER '( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *# /DATED: 14 TH MARCH, 2019 * ' * ITA NO.1158/CHD/2018 A.Y.2010-11 5 #&' ()*) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. + / THE APPELLANT 2. ',+ / THE RESPONDENT 3. - / CIT 4. - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. )./' 0 , !0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /35 / GUARD FILE #& / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR