Shri Baltej Singh, Malerkotla V. ITO, Malerkotla

ITA 142/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9805 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 142/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SHRI BALTEJ SINGH, VS THE ITO, VILLAGE ROORGARH, B-1/7/3, WARD IV(3), MODEL TOWN, MALERKOTLA. MALERKOTLA. PAN: BDVPS5018R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.07.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2, LUDHIANA DATED 01.12.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND ADDITION OF RS . 74,74,000/- UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 13.05.2015, 10.06.2015, 05.08.2015 A ND 2 20.10.2015 BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE AND THEREAFTER, NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR 03.01.2015. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ACCORDINGLY, PASSED THE EX-PARTE ORDER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT MATTER REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION AT THE L EVEL OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT MOST OF THE NOTICES OF HEARING HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT IS WHY, ASSE SSEE HAD A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). IT IS ALSO STATED THAT 03.01.2015 MA Y BE INCORRECT DATE OF HEARING NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, WE FIND THAT ONE MORE CHANCE COULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THE APPEAL ON MERITS BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT LASTLY THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 20.10.2015, HOWEVER, THE APPELLATE ORDER IS PASSED ON 01.12.2015. THE DATE OF HEARING OF 03.01.2015 MAY BE INCORRECTLY NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WHEN LD. CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT PASS THE ORDE R ON PASSING EX-PARTE ORDER ITSELF AND WAITED FOR QUITE LONG TIME, IN OUR VIEW THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE COULD HAVE AFFORDED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ATTEND AND ARGUE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. THEREFORE, WITHOUT COMMENTING UPON THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT INTEREST OF JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT ASSESSEE MAY BE G IVEN 3 ONE MORE CHANCE TO ARGUE THE APPEAL ON MERITS BEFOR E LD. CIT(APPEALS). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE S ET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) WITH DIREC TION TO RE-DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS BY G IVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED NOT TO SEEK UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATTER AND SHALL COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR FINALIZATIO N OF THE APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SA INI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20 TH JULY, 2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD