M/s Punjab Ferrics Ltd., Ludhiana V. ITO, W-1(2), Ludhiana

ITA 1200/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6695 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDER KANTA SR DR
• Keywords: Bogus Share capital; Opportunity of being heard; Set aside

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH SMC CHANDIGARH !', # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1200/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S PUNJAB FERRICS LTD., ADJOINING DUTTA FABRICATORS, G.T.ROAD,DHANDARI KALAN, NEAR OBC BANK, LUDHIANA. VS THE ITO, WARD 1(2), LUDHIANA. ./ PAN NO: AADCP1111D / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : NONE # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA, SR.DR $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 23.01.2019 '()* ! &/ D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.02.2019 $%/ ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2018 OF CIT(A)-1, L UDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PASS OVER ALSO, POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. A PE RUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A) FAILED TO APPEAR WHICH FACTS ARE FOUND ADDRESSED IN PARA 2 OF THE SAME AS UNDER : 2. HOWEVER, DESPITE SEVERAL REMINDERS TO THE APPE LLANT TO ATTEND THE HEARING OF THE CASE AND SUBSTANTIATE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGA INST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, THE APPELLANT COMPANY CHOSE TO DENY ITS ELF THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. FROM THE APPELLATE RECORDS, IT IS NOTI CED THAT THE HEARING NOTICES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY WHEN TH E SAME WERE SERVED THROUGH THE NOTICE-SERVER ATTACHED WITH THIS OFFICE . IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS EITHER NOT SERIOUSLY INT ERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL VOLUNTARILY FILED BY IT OR THE APPELLANT COM PANY HAS NOTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, BEING DECIDED EX PARTE WITHOUT ANY FURTHER REFERENCE TO THE APPELLANT COMP ANY. 3. CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADD ITIONS MADE BY THE AO. IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS AS PER STATEME NT OF FACTS MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 5 STATES THAT ON ACCOUNT OF NON-AVAILABILITY OF TWO DIRECTORS; SHRI PARMINDE R SINGH AND ITA /1200/CHD//2018 PAGE 2 OF 2 HIS WIFE SMT. PARMINDER KAUR WHO WERE OUT OF INDIA, THE OTHE R DIRECTOR SHRI J.P.SINGH THOUGH DID APPEAR HOWEVER, COULD NOT PROVIDE CO MPLETE DETAILS AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO REMAINED UNREPRESENTED BEFORE TH E CIT(A) AS PER NARRATION GIVEN IN PARA 6 ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS : 6. THAT DURING THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS ALSO, IT WAS BAD LUCK OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY THAT THEIR COUNSEL MR. KORAN SHARMA, ADVOCA TE OF LUDHIANA WHO WAS PROVIDED WITH ALL DETAILS BY THE APPELLANT, HAD NOT ATTENDED THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS DUE TO HIS PERSONAL PROBLEMS WITH THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN DECIDED EX-PARTE A ND THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE CAPITAL ADDITIONS H AS BEEN CONFIRMED. IN VIEW OF THEIR RESPONSIBLE ATTITUDE OF THE COUNSE L, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED BY HIM HAVE BEEN DISCONTINUED THEREAFTER. 4. ACCORDINGLY IN THE PECULIAR FACTS, THE LD. SR.DR WAS REQU IRED TO ADDRESS WHETHER SHE HAS ANY OBJECTIONS TO RESTORING T HE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS, LD. SR.DR STATED T HAT SHE HAS NO OBJECTION. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AS NOTED ABOVE, CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE IMPU GNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A)-1 LUDHIANA WITH THE D IRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASS ESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE CONCLUSION HA S BEEN ARRIVED TAKING NOTE OF THE FACTS WHICH ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATE T HAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS DEPRIVED OF AN EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AS THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PARTICIPATE, THUS, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTE D FOR REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPE N COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.02. 2019. SD/- ( !' ) (DIVA SINGH) # / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ( (+ ! ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT - 2. / THE RESPONDENT - 3. $ / / CIT 4. $ / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , & 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7% / GUARD FILE (+ $ / BY ORDER, 8 # / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR