, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B , CHANDIGARH !, ' !# $% & ' ( ) * +, ,- !# BEFORE: SHRI SATBIR SINGH GODARA,JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1388/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S SILVER CITY HOUSING & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH. THE D.C.I.T, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH. ./ PAN NO.AAKCS4654H / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, ADV. & VINEET KHURANA, CA ! / REVENUE BY : S/SHRI G.S.PHANI KISHORE, CIT DR & V.K. KATARIA, SR. DR ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 29.05.2019 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.05.2019 /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHANDIGARH [(IN SHORT CIT(A)] DATED 29.08.2018 ITA NO.1388/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 2 PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT), CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIE D U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 2. NONE CAME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IT WAS NOTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AS BE ING BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE LD.CIT(A), WE FIND, HAD A RRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPEAL WAS TIME BARRED BASE D ON HIS OWN PRESUMPTIONS, THOUGH AS PER THE DETAILS FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF APPEAL FILED TO THE LD.CIT(A) IN FORM NO.35,IT WAS NOT SO. IT FINDS MENTION IN TH E ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) THAT FORM NO.35 SHOWED THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS 29.3.2016 AND THE DATE OF SERV ICE OF ORDER WAS MENTIONED AS 31.3.2016.THE APPEAL WAS FIL ED ON 15.042016, WELL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME OF 30 DA YS OF RECEIPT OF ORDER. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE DATE OF PASSING OF ORDER WAS WRONGLY MENTIONED AS 29-03-16 WHILE TH E ACTUAL DATE WAS 29-02-16. HE THEREAFTER PRESUMED TH AT THE ORDER MUST HAVE SERVED WITHIN 4-5 DAYS AND, THEREFO RE, BY 5.3.2016, AS PER WHICH THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE HIM BY 5.4.2016 BUT WAS ACTUALLY FILED BY 15 .4.2016, WHICH WAS LATE BY 10 DAYS. THE LD.CIT(A) THEREAFTER WITHOUT CONFRONTING THIS FINDING ,WHICH OBVIOUSLY WAS ADVER SE TO ITA NO.1388/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 3 THE ASSESSEE, AND THEREBY DENYING HIM AN OPPORTUNIT Y TO PRESENT THE FACTS AS PER HIM, WENT ON TO STATE THAT NO APPLICATION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY WAS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE .HE THEREFORE DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMI NE . 3. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN AS PER THE DATA FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS NO DELAY IN FIL ING APPEAL, WHY WOULD AN APPLICATION REQUESTING CONDONA TION OF DELAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE LD.CIT(A) WE FIND IS BASED ON MERE PRESUMPTIONS, WI THOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AN D IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES/CANONS OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. WE THEREFORE CONSIDER IT FIT TO RESTORE THE APPE AL BACK TO THE LD.CIT(A) AND DIRECT HIM TO ADJUDICATE THE S AME AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ' ( ) * + (SATBIR SINGH GODARA ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) '# / JUDICIAL MEMBER -# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /' /DATED: 30 TH MAY, 2019 * * ITA NO.1388/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 4 &) *+ ,+ / 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. /3 5# / GUARD FILE &) ' / BY ORDER, ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR