Ms. Sujata Dass, Mullanpur V. ITO, W-4(1), Chandigarh

ITA 1409/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2952 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MINAKSHI VOHRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 63

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.1409/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 MS. SUJATA DASS VS. THE ITO HOUSE NO. 407, WARD 4(1) IAS/PCS OFFICERS COLONY CHANDIGARH MULLANPUR, MOHALI PUNJAB PAN NO. AFCPD6000N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH REVENUE BY : MS. MINAKSHI VOHRA DATE OF HEARING : 05/03/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/03/2019 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 30/08/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-4, LUDHIANA. 2. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS -4), LUDHIANA IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER, IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPO SED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS -4), LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING A PENALTY OF RS. 71,679/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT CORRE CTLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE ESPECIALLY REGARDING THE CONDONATION OF DE LAY. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.71,679/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT), FOR THE REASONS THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,08,000/- AND ACCORDINGLY ADDITION O F RS. 2,15,600/- WAS MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME. AGAINST THE SAID PENALTY ORDER , THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE SAME BY OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS DELAY OF 9 DAYS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNI SHED ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT POINTING OUT DEFECT AND GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO RECTIFY TH E DEFECT IF ANY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. 2 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE AFFIDAVIT OF SH. KAMALJEET SINGH EMPLOYEE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT STATING THEREIN AS UNDER: I, KAMALJIT SINGH , SON OF SH. GURDARSHAN SINGH, RE SIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 601, PHASE-6, MOHALI, DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND DECLARE AS UN DER :- 1. THAT I THE UNDERSIGNED AM WORKING WITH CA VINEET KHURANA, PARTNER M/S KHURANA VINEET & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS , S.C.O. 63 ILND FLOOR, SECTOR 20C, CHANDIGARH. 2. THAT I THE UNDERSIGNED WAS GIVEN THE COMPLETE APPEA L FORM AND ENCLOSURES OF THE APPEAL OF SMT. SUJATA DASS I.A.S. (RETD.), HOUSE NO. 930, SECTOR - 39 A. CHANDIGARH, NOW 407, IAS/PCS OFFICERS COLONY MULLANPUR, MOHALI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 TO SUBMIT TO THE OFFICE OF THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. APPEALS. 3. THAT CA VINEET KHURANA, MY EMPLOYER WAS PREOCCUPIED IN THE MEDICAL TREATMENT OF HIS FATHER WHEN I WENT ON LEAVE. I THE UNDERSIGNED FORGOT TO SUBMIT THE APPEAL WITH THE OFFICE OF THE HON'BLE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS AS I WAS OUT OF STATION FROM 20 TH OF OCTOBER 2015 TILL 2 ND OF NOVEMBER 2015. 4. THAT IT WAS ONLY ON MY RETURN TO OFFICE WHEN CA VIN EET KHURANA ENQUIRED ABOUT THE FILING OF APPEAL, I REALIZED THAT THE FOR M 35 AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WERE STILL LYING IN MY LOCKED OFFICE DRAWER. 5. THAT I SUBMITTED THE SAME TO THE HON'BLE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS ON 2 ND NOVEMBER 2015. 7. IN HER RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PR ESENT CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO RECTIFY TH E DEFECT, IF ANY, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. I THEREFORE BY CO NSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDI NG DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/03/2019.) SD/- (N.K. SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT PLACE: CHANDIGARH DATED : 05/03/2019 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR