Rohit Gambhir, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 1447/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1365 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PARMOD VATS
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: B BENCH: CH ANDIGARH BEFORE HONBLE SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA, AM AND HONBLE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM ITA NO. 1447/CHANDI/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 ROHIT GAMBHIR V INCOME-TAX OFFICER PROP.MEHAL CHAND & SONS VII(2) 109,PANCHSHEEL VIHAR, LUDHIANA. BAREWAL ROAD, LUDHIANA PAN: ABIPG5696F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: S/SHRI PARMOD VATS & PRAVEEN K UMAR RESPONDENT BY: SMT.SARITA KUMARI, DR ORDER D K SRIVASTAVA: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMEN T IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) ON 12.10.2010. THE APPEAL RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT PURSUING THE APPEAL. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) TWICE AND THAT THE LEARNED CIT FAILS T O CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDI NGS ON 8/10/2010 THE LAST DATE OF HEARING BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAD SIFTED TO A NEW PREMISES AND THAT HE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARING OF APPEAL ON A MUCH LATER DATE. 4. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE RELIEF CLAIMED IN THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED. 3.. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.101.2006 RETURNING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 48,485/-. ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 23.12.2008 ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.12,77,900/-. ROHIT GAMBHIR VS. ITO I.T.A.NO. 1447/CHANDI/2010 2 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE F ILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) SU MMARILY DISMISSED THE APPEAL DUE TO DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN ENTER ING THE APPEARANCE BEFORE HIM ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING. 5. IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE TWO SETS OF HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION S WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A PPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND ALSO PERUSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PAPER BOOK B EFORE US WHICH SHOWS THAT HE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX (A). COPIES THEREOF HAVE BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSEE AT PAG E 33,34,35 & 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK. BESIDES, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL S) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER WHILE DISPOSING OF VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BEFORE HIM. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPE ALS) IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION AND FOR DISPOSING EACH GROUND OF APPEAL BY A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS STOOD AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 FEBRUARY 2011 (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D K SRIVASTAVA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHANDIGARH: THE 28 FEBRUARY 2011 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT 4. THE D.R. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH