Hem Dass, Mandi V. Income Tax Officer, Bilaspur

ITA 175/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5146 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: INDER MOHAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 54; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 175/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI HEM DASS VS. THE ITO S/O SH. VIPTU RAM R/O VPO BILASPUR VILL- TATTAAPANI DISTT. MANDI PAN NO. AAYPR7975D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI INDER MOHAN REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 09/01/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.03.2018 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 05/10/2016 OF CIT-A -1 AMRITSAR CAMP PA LAM PUR (HP). 2. THE LD. AR, AT THE TIME OF HEARING INVITING ATTE NTION TO THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE M AY BE PERMITTED TO SUBMIT THESE WITH THE REVISED GROUNDS WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. T HE LD. SR. DR ON CONSIDERING THE REVISED GROUNDS HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE SUBSTITUTIO N IS PERMITTED AS NOTHING FRESH, IT WAS STATED HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVIS ED GROUNDS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH THE ORI GINAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SUBSTITUTED BY THE REVISED GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UN DER: 1. THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE FULLY ALLOWED AND THE YEAR O F INDEXATION MAY BE DECLARED AS THE YEAR OF RECEIVING THE AWARD AMOUNT. 2. THAT ORDER OF LD. A.O. MAY BE DECLARED AS NULL AND VOID AS THERE WAS NO PROPER SERVICE OF THE APPELLANTS. 3. THAT THE SAID CASE PROPERTY OF THE APPELLANT MAY BE DECLARED AS ANCESTRAL PROPERTY AND THERE IS NO TAX CHARGEABLE ON THIS PRO PERTY. 4. THAT THE SOLATIUM MAY BE DECLARED AS NOT TAXABLE IN THE SAID CASE. 5. THAT APPELLANTS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY U/S 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 MAY ALSO BE CONSIDERED. ITA 175/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS. 98,963/- DECLARING A LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON ACCO UNT OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND AND BUILDING. THE SAID RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRU TINY. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED BY AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 AS THE ASSE SSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ISSUE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT-A WHICH ORDER IS CHALLENGED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. THE LD. AR AT THE TIME OF HEARING SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED EMPLOYEE AND HAD RECEIVED THE MONEY IN 2000 ON HIS PROPERTY BEING ACQUIRED AND THEREAFTER HAD LEFT THE PROPERTY. THE RETURN WAS FILED WHEN HE WAS IN A GOVERNMENT POLICE JOB AT BILASPUR. THEREAFTER HE WAS TRANSFERRED TO OFFICE OF S.P. SHI MLA AND THE NOTICE WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN SENT TO BILASPUR WAS NEVER RECEIVED. THE ISSUES FO R ADJUDICATION, IT WAS SUBMITTED ARE COVERED BY THE DECISION DATED 15.12.2017 OF THE COO RDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF TARA GUPTA (ITA NO. 207/CHD/2017) WHICH ORDER HAS BEEN F OLLOWED IN MANY CASES. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE ISSUE MAY B E REMANDED TO THE AO IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE FACTS AND THEREAFTER FOR A DECISION ON MERITS IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID DECISION. 6. THE LD. SR.DR HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE SAID PRAYE R. 7. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH, THE IM PUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE BACK THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IT IS ALSO DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BE PERMITTED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE AS IT SE EKS TO PLACE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PASS AN ORDER THEREAFTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH MARCH,2018. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER AG/POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR ASSTT.REGISTRAR/ITAT/CHD