Ravinder Kumar Bajwa, Yamunanagar V. ITO, W-3, Yamunanagar

ITA 1339/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9668 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAYA INDER SINGH SIDHU DR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 144

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. 1339/CHD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI RAVINDER KUMARBAJWA HOUSE NO. 1324/14A SHIVPURI A, KANSAPUR ROAD, YAMUNANAGAR, HARYANA THE ITO WARD-3 YAMUNANAGAR PAN NO: ALWPB9175G APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE #!' REVENUE BY : SHRI DAYA INDER SINGH SIDHU, DR $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 06/07/2020 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/07/2020 &(/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 28/12/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-4, LUDHIANA. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAS BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL : 1. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING IMPUGNED ORDER AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD CITING THE NO TICE FOR HEARING WAS NOT DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER DATED 28 /12/2018 IN APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT FULLY DISCUSSING THE CONTENTIONS AND THEREF ORE, ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AS IT HAS BEEN PASSED WITH A PREJUDICED MIND. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERR ED IN HOLDING THAT INVESTMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT IS FULLY FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 4. THAT THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE WAS IN INTRADAY TRADING. 2 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MOD IFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L RELATES TO THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING PROPE R OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 20/12/2017 PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S 147 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT) MENTIONED THAT A S PER THE AIR INFORMATION THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 31,30,264/- IN SALES / PURCHASE OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS AS AGINST THE RETURN OF INCOME OF RS. 1,44,000/- FILED FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE A.O. FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT EXPARTE AT AN INCOME OF RS. 29,86,164/-. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. BY PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER EXPARTE, HE MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICE DT. 13/12/20 18 WAS ISSUED FOR DATE OF HEARING ON 26/12/2018 WHICH WAS RETURNED UNDELIVERE D. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NEIT HER THE A.O. NOR THE LD. CIT(A) HAD GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE. HE REQUESTED TO REMAND THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 8. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR ALTHOUGH SUP PORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT T HE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THEIR RES PECTIVE ORDERS EXPARTE. LD. CIT(A) ADMITTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED FOR HEARING WAS RETURNED UNDELIVERED. THE 3 A.O. ALSO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WEL L SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED, UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM, AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM . 10. WE THEREFORE KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF N ATURAL JUSTICE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE A ND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/07/2020 ) SD/- SD/- '# $ .., (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAI NI) % &'/ JUDICIAL MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 06/07/2020 (+! ,-.- 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 (+ $ BY ORDER, ; # ASSISTANT REGISTRAR