Sh. Pritpal Singh Ahluwalia, Phagwara V. ITO, W-6(2), Ludhiana

ITA 1584/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1515 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Additional evidence; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, SMC, CHANDIGARH , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1584/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI PRITPAL SINGH, C/O WALIA VEDIO PARLOUR, HOSHIARPUR ROAD, NEAR APAHAJ GHAR, PHAGWARA VS. THE ITO, WARD-6(2), LUDHIANA ./PAN NO: ABNPA4218J / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ! /ASSESSEE BY : NONE ' ! / REVENUE BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH, CIT DR # $ % /DATE OF HEARING : 10.06.2019 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 .06.2019 / ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2018 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 3, LUDHIANA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GR OUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE, WHILE UPHOLDING THAT THERE WAS VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE BY A.O. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 & INCOME TAX, RULES 1962, AND THUS, PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HI S CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS O F THE CASE, WHILE UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O ., ITA NO. 1584-CHD-2018- SH. PRITPLAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, LUDHIANA 2 AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,85,026/- WITHOUT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TA X RULES, 1962. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, AMEN D OR DELETE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE IT IS FINALLY DISPOSED OFF. 3. NO ONE HAS COME PRESENT DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTIC E IN THIS CASE, HENCE, I PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX-PARTE OF T HE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 3. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE RETUR N OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED FROM THE TDS CERTIFICATE TH AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDED THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED FOR TAXATION OF INCOME. HENCE, HE ISSUED NOTICE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS O F THE ASSESSEE. NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, THEREFORE, FRAMED THE EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 O F THE ACT AND MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ADDITIONS, THE ASSE SSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS PLEADED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THAT IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHIFTED TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY I.E USA ON PERMANENT BASIS AND BECAUSE OF THAT THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT RECEIVE ANY NOTICE SENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS FURTHE R PLEADED THAT THE TOTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR WAS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS. 5 LACS AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ITA NO. 1584-CHD-2018- SH. PRITPLAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, LUDHIANA 3 EXIGIBLE TO THE INCOME TAX FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SOUGHT TO FURNISH CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 IN THIS RESPECT. HOWE VER, THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND H ELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME, HENCE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ADMITTED. H E, ACCORDINGLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. 5. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY WRITTEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD SHIFTED HIS BASE TO USA AND THAT IS WHY HE COULD N OT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE ABOVE CONTENTION HAS N OT BEEN DENIED OR REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE, IN MY VIEW, THERE WAS SUFF ICIENT REASON WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NOTICE OF HEARING ISSU ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN MY VIEW, THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WILL BE WELL SERVED IF THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CAS E BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) IS HEREBY SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECISION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS T O SAY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL GIVE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE. AT THE SAME TIME, I ALSO DIRECT THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL EITHER HIMSELF OR THROUGH HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WI LL PROMPTLY APPEAR ITA NO. 1584-CHD-2018- SH. PRITPLAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, LUDHIANA 4 AND FURNISH NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AND WHEN CALLED FOR. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATE D AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IMM EDIATELY ON COMPLETION OF HEARING SD/- ( / SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 10 .06.2019 .. '+ ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # / / CIT 4. # / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , % 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7$ / GUARD FILE '+ # / BY ORDER, 8 ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR