M/s Creative Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh V. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 1300/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0638 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2021
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C CHANDRAKANTA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Non compliance
• Section: 271(1)(c); 250; 27

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A , CHANDIGARH !'# , $ !% ' & ' ( ) * , !% BEFORE SMT.DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.1300 TO 1303/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2008-09 M/S CREATIVE CAPITAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., SCO 141-143, SECTOR 43-B, CHANDIGARH. THE D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, CHANDIGARH. ./PAN NO: AACCS5540L /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY: SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, ADV. ! / REVENUE BY: SMT.C.CHANDRAKANTA, CIT DR & SMT.MEENAKSHI VOHRA, ADDL.CIT ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 13.07.2021 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.07.2021 /ORDER PER BENCH : ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE S AME ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, GURGAON [(IN SHORT CIT(A) ] ALL DATED 22.06.2019 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005- 06 TO 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY, CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALT Y U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). ITA NOS.1300 TO 1303/CHD/2019 A.YS.2005-06 TO 2008-09 2 2. THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1300 & 1301/CHD/2019 WERE DELAYED FOR FILING BY 25 DAYS. AN APPLICATION SEEKI NG CONDONATION OF THE DELAY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DATED 10.07.2021 STATING THEREIN THAT THE DELAY WAS ON AC COUNT OF FAULT AT THE END OF HIS OFFICE ONLY SINCE THE APPEA LS HAD BEEN HANDED OVER TO AN EMPLOYEE OF HIS OFFICE SHRI RAJKU MAR RAWAT BUT COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME SINCE HE HAD T O PROCEED ON LEAVE TO ATTEND TO HIS AILING MOTHER. THAT EVEN THE COUNSEL WAS TRAVELLING CONSISTENTLY IN THAT PERIOD ON ACCOUNT OF THE TREATMENT OF HIS NEPHEW WHO WAS SUFF ERING FROM CANCER AND ONLY WHEN SHRI RAJKUMAR RAWAT RETUR NED, AFTER ATTENDING TO HIS MOTHER ,THAT THE APPEALS WER E FOUND TO HAVE NOT BEEN FILED AND ACCORDINGLY CORRECTIVE MEAS URES WERE TAKEN AND THE APPEALS FILED BELATEDLY ON 03.10 .2019. AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAJKUMAR RAWAT WAS FILED BEFOR E US STATING THE ABOVE FACTS ON OATH. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THERE WAS NO MALAFIDE INTENTI ON IN NOT FILING THE APPEALS IN TIME AND THE DELAY, THEREFORE , BE CONDONED. 3. THE LD. DRS IN THE TWO APPEALS, SMT.C.CHANDRAKAN TA AND SMT.MEENAKSHI VOHRA, STATED BEFORE US TO HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE DELAY BEING CONDONED. 4. ACCORDINGLY, NOTING THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT AN D BONAFIDE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY OF 25 DAYS, THE SAME W AS ITA NOS.1300 TO 1303/CHD/2019 A.YS.2005-06 TO 2008-09 3 CONDONED AND THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ITS ELF DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 5. THEREAFTER THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTE NDED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS WAS IDEN TICAL RELATING TO PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T ,WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL T HE APPEALS WERE IDENTICAL AND THAT HIS PRIMARY ARGUME NT WAS THAT THE CIT(A) HAD PASSED AN EXPARTE ORDER, WIT HOUT GRANTING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE , IN GROSS DISREGARD OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEALS ,IN THIS REGARD,AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN PASSING AN EX-PARTE ORDER WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPALS OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 6. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE WHILE PASSING THE EXPARTE ORDER,THE LD.CIT(A) HAD N OTED NON COMPLIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE TO VARIOUS NOTICES OF HE ARING ISSUED TO IT.HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 4.1 OF THE ORDER WHEREIN THE SAME WAS STATED TO BE RECORDED AND WHIC H READS AS UNDER: 4.1. NOTICE U/S 250 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION, FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 20.02.2019. NONE APP EARED ON THIS DATE. ANOTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED FIXING THE CASE FOR ITA NOS.1300 TO 1303/CHD/2019 A.YS.2005-06 TO 2008-09 4 HEARING ON 23.04.2019. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH, AR OF THE APPELLANT APPEARED AND REQUESTED F OR ADJOURNMENT AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 24.05.20 19. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ON SAID DA TED. ANOTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARI NG ON 07.06.2019. NONE APPEARED ON THIS DATE NOR SUBMISSI ONS WERE FILED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE ENTIRE APPEL LATE PROCEEDINGS. 7. HE CONTENDED THAT IN FACT EXCEPT FOR THE OPPOR TUNITY OF HEARING GRANTED ON 24.05.2019 ,AS NOTED IN PARA 4.1, ABOVE NO OTHER NOTICES WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E. HE PLEADED, THEREFORE, THAT THE APPEAL BE RESTORED BAC K TO THE LD.CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH AFTER GRANTING DU E OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED LEGAL GROUNDS BEFORE THE LD .CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN GROUND NO.1-4 ,WHICH HAD NOT BEEN ADJUDI CATED BY HIM AND, THEREFORE, HE PLEADED THE APPEALS BE R ESTORED TO THE LD.CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING THE LEGAL GROUND S RAISED AS WELL AS THOSE ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. THE LD. DRS DID NOT OBJECT TO THIS PLEA OF THE LD.C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SINCE ALL THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ARE EX-PARTE ORDER ,AND THOUGH THE LD.CI T(A) HAS LISTED FOUR NOTICES ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR GRAN T OF HEARING IN THE APPEALS,AND THE LD.COUNSEL HAS STATE D THAT EXCEPT FOR ONE NOTICE , HE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OTH ER NOTICE, BE THAT SO, IT IS A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUS TICE THAT NO ITA NOS.1300 TO 1303/CHD/2019 A.YS.2005-06 TO 2008-09 5 PERSON SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD. CONSIDERING THE FACTS BEFORE US,WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT INTEREST OF JUST ICE WILL BE WELL SERVED BY RESTORING ALL THE APPEALS BACK TO TH E LD.CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ,AF TER GRANTING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE . 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- !'# & ' ( ) * (DIVA SINGH ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) $ !% /JUDICIAL MEMBER +, !% /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &' / DATED: 16 TH JULY, 2021 * * &) *+,+ / 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