Sh. Sanjay Singal, Chandigarh V. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 1431/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7834 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND SUDERSHAN
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठ च瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठच瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठ च瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठ ‘‘बी बीबी बी.’’, च瀃डीगढ़ च瀃डीगढ़च瀃डीगढ़ च瀃डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर अपील अपीलअपील अपील सं संसं सं./ ITA No. 1431/CHD/2019 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Singal, #3, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh. बनाम VS The DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh. 瀡थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: ANRPS7985C अपीलाथ牸/Appellant 灹瀄यथ牸/Respondent िनधा榁琇रती क琉 ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA राज瀡व क琉 ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Arvind Sudershan, Sr.DR तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.01.2022 उदघोषणा क琉 तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2022 VIRTUAL HEARING आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/ORDER PER DIVA SINGH The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 28.08.2019 of CIT(A)-3 Gurgaon pertaining to 2010-11 assessment year is assailed on the following grounds : 1. That order passed u/s 250(6) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to decide the appeal ex-parte. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) gravely erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte despite the fact that no notice of hearing fixing the case for 13.08.2019 was ever served on the appellant. 3. That Ld. CIT(A) gravely erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 91,71,120/- without waiting for the decision of Ld. CIA(A) in quantum proceedings. ITA-1431/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 2 of 4 4. That Ld. CIT(A) was not justified to uphold the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs. 91,71,120/- even on merits as the appellant had sufficient resources out of additional income declared to invest in the impugned transaction. 5. That Ld. CIT(A) further was not justified in upholding penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs. 91,71,120/- particularly when no specific charge has been made out by the Learned Assessing Officer for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) i.e. whether it is for concealment or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 2. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, appearing on behalf of the assessee inviting attention to ground No. 5 raised in the present proceedings submitted that the order passed by the AO is bad in law. Considering the fact that the impugned order no doubt notes the presence of the counsel but on a perusal thereof, it is noticed that the assessee was not heard. This fact is evident from para 4 and 4.1 of the impugned order as the counsel addressing the said position submitted that there were a number of cases of various groups and large number of appeals of the assessee were fixed for hearing and the counsel was present before the CIT(A) and thus, inadvertently apparently presence was noted but no hearing was give in the said appeal. A perusal of the impugned order shows that no such submission appears to have made on this issue before the CIT(A) on account of lack of effective opportunity of being heard. The ld. AR in the circumstances made a limited prayer that the issue may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) as it is a covered issue legally in favour of the assessee, no facts need to be seen. ITA-1431/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 3 of 4 3. The ld. CIT-DR considering the said request had no objection to the said prayer. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have noticed that in the facts of the present case, effective opportunity of hearing has not been given to the assessee and infact the ld. Commissioner has concluded that the assessee may not be serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Considering the submissions of the assessee wherein it is pleaded that various cases were fixed for hearing pursuant to search & seizure operation in the Bhushan Group as emanating from the assessment order, the arguments can be accepted that it is not a case of non compliance, non participation but possibly oversight. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, issue is set aside back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee in its own interests is directed to ensure full and proper participation. While restoring, it is made clear that in the eventuality of abuse of the trust reposed, the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass a speaking order in accordance with law on the basis of the material available on record. Said order was pronounced in the presence of the parties via Webex. ITA-1431/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 4 of 4 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28 th February,2022. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (DIVA SINGH) लेखा लेखालेखा लेखा सद瀡य सद瀡यसद瀡य सद瀡य/ Accountant Member 瀈याियक 瀈याियक瀈याियक 瀈याियक सद瀡य सद瀡यसद瀡य सद瀡य/ Judicial Member “Poonam” आदेश क琉 灹ितिलिप अ灡ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ牸/ The Appellant 2. 灹瀄यथ牸/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु猴/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु猴 (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय 灹ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च瀃डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड榁 फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar