Rajbir Singh , Yamunanagar V. ITO, W-4, Yamunanagar

ITA 1230/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0442 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND SUDARSHAN JCIT DR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Set aside

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH A, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) .., !' '# $, % &' BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, J M ITA NO.1230/CHD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 RAJBIR SINGH S/O RATI RAM VILL: BHATAULI, THE: JAGADHARI DIST: YAMUNA NAGAR THE ITO WARD-4, YAMUNA NAGAR PAN NO: AFJPS4726H APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY JAIN , C.A #!' REVENUE BY : SHRI ARVIND SUDARSHAN, JCIT, DR $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 15/06/2020 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/06/2020 &(/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT . 28/06/2019 OF LD. CIT(A)-4, LUDHIANA. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAS BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME APPEALS HAS WRO NGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WITHOUT ANY NOTICE/INFORMATION GIVEN TO APPELLANT REGARDING DELAY IN FILING DURING HE COURSE OF HEARING. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME APPEALS HAS WRO NGLY UPHELD THERE WAS DELAY OF 19 DAYS AS SHE HAS TAKEN THE DATE OF ORDER AS DA TE OF SERVICE. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME APPEALS HAS WRO NGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HA D SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE & REMAND REPORT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER & NO OBJECTION WITH RESPECT TO DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WAS RAISED BY ASSESSING O FFICER. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME APPEAL S BE SET ASIDE & IT IS PRAYED THAT DIRECTION FOR CONDONING OF DELAY BE GIVEN & DE CIDE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE THE DE FECT, IF ANY, DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE BY STATING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IT WAS STATED THAT NO OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS GIVEN TO 2 EXPLAIN THE DELAY. HE THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE CASE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE LD. CIT(A). 4. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR ALTHOUGH SUP PORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) REPRODUCED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN PARA 2 OF THE IMPUG NED ORDER AND THEREAFTER DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING IN PA RA 3 AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WITH CORROBORATING EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BEING DEFECTIVE. 6. FROM THE AFORESAID OBSERVATION IT IS NOT CLEAR AS T O WHETHER THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE THE DEFECT, IF ANY, WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE OR NO T BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE THEREFORE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO T HE 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. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 15/06/2020 ) SD/- SD/- '# $ .., (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAI NI) % &'/ JUDICIAL MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 15/06/2020 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE