Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Rajpura V. DCIT, Circle, Mandi Gobindgarh

ITA 1231/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5139 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRA KANTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Deemed to accrue or arise in india

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.1231/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SH. KULDEEP SINGH VS. THE DCIT, S/O SH. GURNAM SINGH, CIRCLE VILL- JANDOLI TEHSIL- RAJPURA MANDI GOBINDGARH PUNJAB PUNJAB PAN NO. BHCPS8820A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. VIBHOR GARG REVENUE BY : SMT. CHANDRAKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 29/01/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/02/2019 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 22/07/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-3, PATIALA. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE PRESEN T APPEAL: 1. BECAUSE THE ACTION FOR UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS . 10 LACS TREATING THE AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED IS BEING CHALLENGED ON FACTS & LAW. 2. BECAUSE THE ACTION FOR TREATING THE EXPLAINED AMOUN T AS DEEMED INCOME IS ON BEING CHALLENGED ON FACTS & LAW WHILE AMOUNT IS EXP LAINABLE TO THE EXTENT OF RESOURCES OF SOURCE & SUBSTANTIATED WITH ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENT S, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ASSIGNED REASONING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. BECAUSE FOR ALLOWING THE ADDITION, MODIFICATION IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL SINCE BEING A LAST FACT FINDING AUTHORITY AND FOR ANY CON SEQUENTIAL RELIEF AND OR ANY LEGAL CLAIM ARISING THEREIN IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUST ICE FOR A DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ARRESTED WITH CASH OF RS. 10 LACS ON 11/03/2011 BY THE SHO, CITY JAGRAON AND SAI D CASH WAS HANDED OVER TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRO DUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR THE SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE SEIZED CASH OF RS. 10 LACS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 19/ 03/2013 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 72,000/- AS SALARY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE CASH OF RS. 10 LACS. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SUM OF RS. 10 LACS ACTUALLY BELONGED TO MRS. KAMALJIT KAUR W/O SH. KARAMJIT SINGH OF VIL LAGE NOSHERA TEHSIL RAJPURA DISTT. PATIALA AND WAS PART OF SALE PROCEED OF THE LAND SO LD ON 14/02/2011. COPY OF SALE DEED OF AGRICULTURE LAND WAS FURNISHED. SHRI. KARAM JIT SINGH AND MRS. KAMALJIT KAUR HAD ALSO GIVEN THE WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS WORKING FOR THEM AS A DRIVER AND CARE TAKER FOR THEIR PARENTS AND THAT TH E DUTIES ALSO INCLUDED LOOKING AFTER THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS AND ALL OTHER FINANCIALS. 2 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER DID NOT FIND ANY M ERIT IN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT P RODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF CASH SEIZED. HE THEREFORE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 LACS. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO PASSED THE EX-PARTE ORDER AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET STATED THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND EVEN NO NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE HEARING THEREFORE THE EX-PARTE ORD ER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT JUSTIF IED. 8. IN HER RIVAL SUBMISSION THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOTIC ED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE EX-PARTE ORDER MENTIONED THAT NONE WAS PRESENT EITH ER ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OR THE ASSESSEE. HE SIMPLY STATED THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIXED AND THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN ARGUMENT, HOWEVER NOWHERE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS ISSUED OR SERVED UPON THE AS SESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. I THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE D EEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUD ICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/02/2019) SD/- (N.K. SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 04/02/2019 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR