IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.151(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011- 12 SH. PARAMBIR SINGH PROP. M/S. SANDHU FILLING STATION, VPO SANDHWAN, KOTKAPURA C/O 30-NEW GRAIN MARKET, TARAN TARAN. PAN:BAAPS-4274B VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), TARAN TARAN. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. PADAM BAHL (C.A) RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN (D.R) DATE OF HEARING: 05.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:05.09.2017 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY (JM): THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON FILING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2015 PASSED I N APPEAL NO.21/2014-15, RELEVANT TO THE ASST. YEAR: 2011-12 BY CIT(A)-1, AMRITSAR. 2. AT THE THRESHOLD, IT IS APPARENT FROM RECORD THAT THE INSTANT APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AS THERE IS 388 DAYS DEL AY IN FILING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL, ON WHICH THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE D RAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF CONTEN TION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE EMP LOYEE ONLY ON 31 ST DEC. 2015 AND THE ORDER COULD NOT BE PRODUCED TO THE ITA NO.151 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR : 2011-12 2 APPELLANT BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEE WHO RECEIVED THE NOTICE DID NOT REALIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SAID ORDER AND ONCE THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT RECEIVED A NOTICE U/S 271(1) (C) FROM TH E ITO-WARD NO.2, TARAN TARAN FOR LEVY OF PENALTY IN MARCH, 2007 THEN ONLY CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE SERVICE OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 27.11.2015, THEREAFTER, IMMEDIATELY THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO ENGAGED SH. PADAM BAHL AS HIS COUNSEL FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE ITAT, AMRITSAR AND ALSO SENT RELEVANT PAPERS TO HIM AND THEREAFTER, THE COUNSEL PREPARED THE APPEAL AND SENT THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SIGNATURE AND THE SIGNED PAPERS WERE DELIVERED ON 23 RD MARCH, 2017 AND ULTIMATELY THE INSTANT APPEAL WAS FILED ON 24 TH MARCH, 2017, THUS, THERE IS DELAY OF 388 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AS WELL AS PERUSED AFFIDAVIT FILED ON RECORD WHICH GOES TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IN PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ONLY, WE CONDONE THE AFORESAID DELAY. 4. LET US TO PROCEED WITH THE MERIT OF THE CASE, AS IT REF LECTS FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THAT BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) OFFERED MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE BY SENDING THREE OR FOUR NOTICES, HOWEVER, REASON BEST KNOWN TO TH E ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO N OT OFFERED ANY COGENT AND PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION IN SUPPORT OF UNDISCL OSED SOURCES, ITA NO.151 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR : 2011-12 3 THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) WA S HAVING NO OPTION EXCEPT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON NON PROSECUTION. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION HEREIN THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO PASS AN ORDER ON MERIT, HENCE, IN THE PRINCIPLE OF N ATURAL JUSTICE AND TO FOLLOW THE RULE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM , WE ARE INCLINED TO REMAND THE INSTANT CASE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE AF RESH ON MERITS WHILE GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS SPECIFICALLY WARNED IN CASE THE ASSESSEE WILL AGAIN FAILED TO CO-OPERATE AND TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON EA CH AND EVERY DATE OF HEARING WITHOUT ANY BONAFIDE REASON, THEN TH E ASSESSEE SHALL SUBJECT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SA ME LENIENCY WOULD NOT BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.09. 2017. SD/- SD/- (T. S. KAPOOR) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICI AL MEMBER DATED:05.09.2017. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER ITA NO.151 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR : 2011-12 4