Shri Pritam Singh, Raikot V. ITO, W-2, Jagraon

ITA 1587/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5333 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR G S PHANI KISHORE CIT
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH B, CHANDIGARH .., ! '# . . , $ % & BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI. R.L. NEGI, JM ITA NO.1587/CHD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI PRITAM SINGH S/O SH. PREM SINGH, IDGAH ROAD (NOW GREEN AVENUE), GAS AGENCY ROAD, RAIKOT, TEHSIL JAGRAON, DIST: LUDHIANA, PUNJAB THE ITO W-2 JAGRAON, PUNJAB PAN NO: DMOPS0687G APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, CA #!' REVENUE BY : DR. G.S. PHANI KISHORE, CIT $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 08/10/2020 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/10/2020 %'/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 14/11/2019 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-3, LUDHIANA. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS SHE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO DEC IDE THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. 2. THAT SHE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND RELATING TO RE- OPENING OF THE CASE U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THAT SHE WAS FURTHER NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARILY R EJECT THE GROUND RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 76,00,000/- DEPOSITED IN THE BANK A CCOUNT OF THE APPELLANTS SONS. 3. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 2 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE A.O. ON THE B ASIS OF THE INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,27,30 ,000/- IN HER SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH PUNJAB AND SINDH BANK ISSUED THE NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS A CT) TO THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE EVIDENCE OF SAL E OF LAND FOR RS. 49,50,000. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE E VIDENCE FOR BALANCE AMOUNT. THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 77,80,000/- WHILE FR AMING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A), WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER EXPARTE. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET ST ATED THAT THE A.O. WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT MADE T HE ADDITION OF RS. 77,80,000/- ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED SAID AMOUNT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. HOWEVER THERE WAS NO SUCH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, WAS NOT J USTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. HE REQUESTED TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR F RESH ADJUDICATION AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . 8. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR ALTHOUGH SUPPORTE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BUT COULD NOT REBUT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, I T IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE A.O. FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 77,80,000/- BY OBSERVING THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DEPO SITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. ON THE CONTRARY THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSES SEE, THEREFORE, THE FACTS ARE NOT CLEAR. MOREOVER, THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE IMP UGNED ORDER EXPARTE, HE SIMPLY STATED THAT ON 15/10/2019 THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 3 25/10/2019, THEREAFTER NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 06/11/2019 FOR HEARING ON 13/11/2019. HOWEVER IT IS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE NOTICE FOR HEARING ON 13/11/2019 WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD, AS PER THE MAXIM, AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM . 10. WE, THEREFORE, BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES O F NATURAL JUSTICE AND PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS CASE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASID E THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF A.O. TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PRO VIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/10/2020 ) SD/- SD/- . . .., (R.L. NEGI ) ( N.K. SAINI) $ %&/ JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 08/10/2020 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE (+ $ BY ORDER, ; # ASSISTANT REGISTRAR