M/s Ajanta Hosiery & Exports (P) Ltd., Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 167/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73482 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 167/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 AJANTA HOSIERY & EXPORTS VS. I.T.O. WARD 1(1) (P) LTD. LUDHIANA C/O MR. RAKESH GUPTA 558, CEMETERY ROAD CIVIL ROAD LUDHIANA AACCA 0137B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING 19.2.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26.2.2014 O R D E R PER T.R.SOOD, A.M THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2011 OF THE LD CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS G ROUNDS BUT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INSISTED THAT GROUND NO. 13 SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED BEFORE ADJUDICATING OTHER GR OUNDS. GROUND NO. 13 READS AS UNDER: 13 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 3 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT MADE PROPER APPEARANCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ). IN THIS REGARD PARA 2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER READS AS UNDER: 2. THIS APPEAL WAS TRANSFERRED FROM CIT(A)-I, LUDHI ANA TO THIS OFFICE, THEREAFTER, A NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 20.12.2010 IS SUED TO THE APPELLANT, SHRI. RAJESH MEHRU, C.A. APPEARED AND REQUEST FOR A DJOURNMENT. ON HIS REQUEST CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 11.01.2011 BUT ON ON E APPEARED ON THE SAID DATED AND CASE WAS RE-FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 28 .02.2011. ON 28.02.2011, THE CASE WAS FURTHER ADJOURNED TO 16.03 .2011 ON COUNSELS WRITTEN REQUEST BUT AGAIN ON 16.03.2011 ON ONE ATTE ND THE CASE. AGAIN 2 THE CASE RE-FIXED FOR 29.03.2011 AND THEN ON 19.04. 2011 BUT NO ONE APPEARED. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS AGAIN RE-FIXED F OR 08.06.2011 AND AGAIN A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT RECEIVED AND THE CA SE WAS ADJOURNED TO 28.06.2011. BUT ON THE SAID DATE NO ONE ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS. THE CASE AGAIN FIXED FOR 28.09.2011 BUT NO ONE ATTEND T HE PROCEEDINGS. THE CASE ONCE AGAIN FIXED FOR 20.10.2011, ON SAID DATE, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT APPEARED AND REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT OF 4 DAYS TO FILE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 24.10.2011 . ON 24.10.2011, AGAIN A REQUEST OF ADJOURNMENT FOR 15 DAYS MADE BY THE APPELLANTS COUNSEL AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 16.11.2011. O N 16.11.2011 NO ONE APPEARED. THE CASE WAS AGAIN RE-FIXED FOR 12.12 .2011 AND NOTICE IN THIS REGARD ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT THROUGH SPEED P OST BUT THE SAME WAS RECEIVED WITH THE POSTAL AUTHORITYS REMARK REFUSE D WHICH IS ENCLOSED WITH THIS APPELLATE ORDER AS ANNEXURE-A. 4 BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MAINL Y STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BECAUSE OF UNAVO IDABLE REASONS AND SUCH REASONS WERE STATED BEFORE US. 5 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE S TRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DEFINITELY DELEQUENT IN MAKING AP PEARANCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BUT IN SUCH CASES MATTER CANNOT BE RESTORED LIGHTLY BECAUSE THE SAME WOULD SEND A WRONG SIGNAL TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFO RE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT AN OPPORTUNITY CAN BE GRANTED I N THIS CASE SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COST. WE PROPOSE A LEVY OF C OST AT RS. 25,000/- WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND APPEAR IN RESPONSE TO FIRST NOTICE ITSELF. 7 WE MAY CLARIFY THAT THE APPEAL WOULD BE HEARD ONL Y AFTER THE PAYMENT OF RS. 25,000/- AS COST. THE COST HAS TO BE PAID BY WAY OF DONATION IN FAVOUR OF THE CHARITABLE INS TITUTE KNOWN 3 AS CHILD RELIEF & YOU I.E. CRY. THE LD. CIT(A) S HOULD HEAR THE APPEAL AFTER MAKING SURE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REMITTED THIS AMOUNT TO CRY BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFT. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.2.2014 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 26.2.2014 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR