Sh. Veerpal Garg, Sri Muktsar Sahib V. The Income-tax Officer, Muktsar

ITA 142/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76951 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 142(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PAN: AIRPG3370L VEERPAL GARG, SON OF SH. RAM VS. INCOME TAX OFFIC ER, KISHAN, SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB WARD-II(2), MUKTSAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 24.04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.05.2014 ORDER 1) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.12.2013 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), BA THINDA, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1) THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE INASMUCH AS THE L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), BATHINDA WAS N OT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARILY UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS. 247140/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF LAND. 2) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO ADJUDICATE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT DESERVED TO BE QUASHED AS WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WERE GROSSLY VIOLATED . 3) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO PASS A N ORDER WITHOUT ALLOWING THE APPELLANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAM INE THE PERSONS, SH. RAJAN SATIA, BAWA YADWINDER SINGH, S. SURJIT SI NGH, SH. BALDEV RAJ AND SH. KISHORE CHAND, ON THE BASIS OF S TATEMENT OF WHOM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAM ED. 2 2) FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY ARE NOT DISPUTED BY LEARNED DR, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT T HE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3) NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 24.04.2014 WAS ISSUED TO T HE ASSESSEE BY RPAD IN SPITE OF THE SAME NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. 4) KEEPING IN VIEW THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, I AM OF TH E VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ADJOURN THE PRESE NT APPEAL THEREFORE, I PROCEED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE EX-PARTE ASS ESSEE AFTER HEARING LEARNED DR. 5) AFTER HEARING LEARNED DR AND PERUSING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE MAIN C ONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THAT THE REVEN UE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT ALLOWING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSES TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE PERSONS, NAMELY, SH. RAJAN SATIA, BAWA YADWINDER SINGH, S. SURJIT SINGH, SH. BALDEV RAJ AND SH. KISH ORE CHAND, ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF WHOM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF AS SESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION IN DISPU TE HAS BEEN MADE MAINLY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENTS OF AFORESAID PERSONS AND THE REVENUE AUTHORITY HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE SH. RAJAN SATIA, BAWA YADWINDER SING H, S. SURJIT SINGH, 3 SH. BALDEV RAJ AND SH. KISHORE CHAND, ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF WHOM, THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN MA DE. 6) LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY STATING THAT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT THE ITO IS NOT BOUND BY TECHNICAL RULES OF EVIDENCE AND THE DE PARTMENT CANNOT BE SUPPOSED TO PUT ON BLINKERS WHILE LOOKING AT THE DO CUMENTS AND THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH BEH IND THE VEIL. 7) IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE REVENUE AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVEN ANY PLAUSIBLE REASONS FOR NOT PROVIDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE AFORESAID PERSONS; EVEN OTHERWISE A PARTY MUST BE GIVEN A FAIR CHANCE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS. T HE SUMMARY PROCEDURE CANNOT TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT OF PARTY TO CR OSS-EXAMINE THE OTHER SIDE. IT IS WRONG TO SAY THAT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, ITO IS NOT BOUND BY THE TECHNICAL RULES OF EVIDENCE. IN MY CONSIDERE D VIEW, THE PARTY MUST BE GIVEN A FAIR CHANCE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS AS REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. UNDER THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED OR DER PASSED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FA CTS ON THE FILE WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW BECAUSE THE ADDIT ION IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN MADE SPECIFICALLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS OF THE PERSONS, NAMELY, SH. RAJAN SATIA, BAWA YADWINDER SINGH, S. SURJIT SINGH, SH. BALDEV RAJ AND SH. KISHORE CHAND AND THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED FO R AN OPPORTUNITY TO 4 CROSS-EXAMINE THE SAID PERSONS, WHICH HAS WRONGLY B EEN DENIED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY. 8) ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO C ROSS-EXAMINE THE PERSONS, NAMELY, SH. RAJAN SATIA, BAWA YADWINDER SI NGH, S. SURJIT SINGH, SH. BALDEV RAJ AND SH. KISHORE CHAND, ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND CONFRONT THE MATERIALS USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AN D DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUA TE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 9) WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS/DIRECTIONS, THE APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH MAY, 2014 SD/./- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8 TH MAY, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: VEERPAL GARG, SON OF SH. RAM KISHAN, SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB 2. ITO, WARD-II(2), MUKTSAR 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER 5 (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.