Smt. Manjit Kaur, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-1(4), Ludhiana

ITA 1381/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3301 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH CIT DR
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ BHALLA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Time period of passing order; Set aside
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BEN CH B, CHANDIGARH .., ! '# #$ %, & '( BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, JM ITA NO. 1381/CHD/ 2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SMT. MANJIT KAUR 632, URBAN ESTATE, PHASE-II CHANDIGARH ROAD LUDHIANA THE ITO WARD-1(4) LUDHIANA PAN NO: AMUPK9249F APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PANKAJ BHALLA, CA #!' REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, CIT DR $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 20/08/2019 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/08/2019 ')/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 17/08/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-1, LUDHIANA. 2. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT G IVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DIT INVESTIGATION LUDHIANA THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD MADE DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,12,90,686/- IN HER BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WI TH HSBC BANK, LUDHIANA AND HAD NOT OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION TO THE AFORESAID CR EDIT ENTRIES, ISSUED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT) ON 30/03/2016 AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS U NDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOM E VIDE LETTER DT. 17/08/2016 SHOWING INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 10,630/- AND AGRICUL TURAL INCOME OF RS. 90,000/-. HOWEVER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE A.O. AT AN INCOME OF RS. 2,76,14,820/- AND THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 90, 000/- BY MAKING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY PASSING AN EX-PARTE ORDER. 2 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PARA 2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) PASSED TH E IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSE E. HE REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE DECID ED ON MERITS AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AS SESSEE. 7. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. CIT DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFOR ESAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 8. 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 NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER EX-PARTE BY OBSERV ING IN PARA 2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: 3. WHEN THE AFORESAID APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEA RING, THE APPELLANT CHOSE TO SEEK REPEATED ADJOURNMENTS ON FLIMSY GROUN DS. THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT FOR ADJOURNMENTS ON MANY OCCASIONS [AS MA NY AS 25 AS BORNE OUT OF THE APPELLATE RECORDS] WAS CONSIDERED FOR THE SAKE OF FAIRNESS AND NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON SUBSEQUENT DA TES. ON 08/08/2018, THE APPELLANT WAS REPRESENTED BY HER HUSBAND, SHRI AMRI TPAL SINGH WHO AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. HEARING OF APPEAL IN SHRI AMRITPAL SIN GH'S OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y.2009-10 WAS ALSO SEEN TO HAVE BEEN PROCRASTINAT ED BY REPEATED REQUESTS FOR ADJOURNMENTS WITHOUT ANY VALID GROUNDS. THE HUSBAND OF THE APPELLANT, SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH WAS CATEGORICALLY INFORMED THAT NO F URTHER ADJOURNMENT SHALL BE GRANTED AND THE CASE WAS FINALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 16/08/2018. HOWEVER, ON 16/08/2018, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AP PELLANT ATTENDED AND AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT REQUIRES MORE TIME TO PREPARE AND PLEAD THE CASE. CONSIDERING THIS REQUES T TO BE A MERE PRETEXT TO DELAY THE ADJUDICATION OF THE INSTANT APPEAL, THE R EQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTED AND IT WAS MADE CLEAR TO THE AUTHORISED RE PRESENTATIVE THAT NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT SHALL BE GRANTED AND THAT THE CASE SHAL L BE DECIDED ON MERIT ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORDS AVAILABLE ON THE APPELLATE FOL DER, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER REFERENCE TO THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS WAS ALSO PLAGUED BY NON-COOPERATION ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. THE DELAY IN FILING THE INSTAN T APPEAL WAS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT BEING PREV ENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT ADHERING TO THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF 30 DAYS AS MANDATED BY SECTION 249 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, FOR THE SAKE OF FAIRNESS AND NATU RAL JUSTICE, THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT SHE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAU SE OF HOSPITALISATION AND BEDREST DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD IS ACCEPTED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION, ALBEIT EX PARTE. 8.1 FROM THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT( A)IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED EX-PARTE. IT IS WELL SETT LED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED, UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM, AUDI ALTERAM PERTEM . WE THEREFORE BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTIC E DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE CASE IS REMANDED B ACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. 3 CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AS SESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/08/2019 ) SD/- SD/- #$ % .., (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAI NI) & '(/ JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 26/08/2019 (+! ,-.- 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