Sh. Ramanpreet Singh, Jalandhar V. Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

ITA 200/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 20020914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: TARSEM SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.200(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN :BBAPS3968R SH. RAMANPREET SINGH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, S/O SH. SURINDER PAL SINGH, WARD III(3), JALANDHAR . JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:NONE RESPONDENT BY:SH. TARSEM SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING: 30/07/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:06/08/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 09.03.2012 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006-07, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DECIDIN G THE APPEAL WITHOUT ALLOWING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELL ANT WHICH IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATU RAL JUSTICE. 2. THAT NOTICE FIXING THE APPEAL FOR 06.03.2012 WA S NOT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND AS SUCH THE APPELLATE ORDER HA S BEEN PASSED ITA NO.200(ASR)/2012 2 BY THE CIT(A) WITHOUT ALLOWING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLATE ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERITS WITHOUT ALLOWING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 4. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 ABOV E AND ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, TH E LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT NOTICE DATED 01.08 .2000 U/S 143(2) ISSUED BY THE LD. ITO IS NOT BARRED BY LIMIT ATION. 5. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 ABOVE A ND ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, TH E LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 5,00,000/- MADE BY THE LD. ITO BY REJECTING THE EXPLANATION FURNISH ED BY THE APPELLANT AND WITHOUT BRINGING ANYTHING ON RECORD T O PROVE THAT THE INSURANCE PREMIUM HAS BEEN PAID BY THE APPELLAN T OUT OF HIS CONCEALED INCOME. 5. THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THAT THE APPELLANT, AGED BELOW NINETEEN YEARS WHEN THE INSUR ANCE PREMIUM WAS PAID, POSSIBLE CANNOT HAVE SOURCE OF IN COME TO PAY INSURANCE PREMIUM OF RS.15,32,840/- AND THEREF ORE ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/- COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IN VIEW OF JUDGMENT OF HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P.K. NORJAHAN (1999) 2 37 ITR 570. 6. THAT ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED ADDITION OF RS .15,00,000/- MADE BY THE LD. ITO. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD FOR 30.07.2012. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE F ILED AN APPLICATION DATED 30.07.2012 REQUESTING FOR ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT HIS COUNSEL IS NOT AVAILABLE TO ATTEND THE CASE BEFORE THIS BENCH ON 3 0.07.2012. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION AS WELL AS THE FACTS AND ITA NO.200(ASR)/2012 3 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT NO REASONABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SEEKING AD JOURNMENT. THEREFORE, APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT IS REJECTED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST REVENUE AUTHORITIES, ESPECIALLY THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED HEREINAB OVE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY PLEADED THAT THE LD . FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT ALLOWED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE DECIDIN G THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND FOUND THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS FIXED THE PRESENT APPEAL FOR HEARING INITIALLY ON 8/9/2011 BY ISSUING A NOTICE DATED 26.08.2011. B UT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED AND THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AGAIN ADJOURNED THE MATTER FOR 20.09.201 1 AND THEREAFTER FOR 17.10.2011. ON 17.11.2011, SH. ASHWANI MITTAL,CA, A PPEARED AND FILED HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ADJOURNED THE MATTER FOR 11.11.2011, 21.1 1.2011 & 12.12.2011. ON 12.12.2011, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD GO NE OUT OF STATION AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND LD. FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY FINALLY THE ADJOURNED THE MATTER TO 03.01.2012. FURTHER, THE LD . CIT(A) HIMSELF ITA NO.200(ASR)/2012 4 ADJOURNED THE MATTER FOR 20.01.2012 DUE TO ADMINIST RATIVE REASONS AND THEREAFTER FOR 06.03.2012. ON 06.03.2012 NEITHER T HE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED AND THE LD. FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ON THE BASIS OF MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORD ER DATED 09.03.2012. 4. THE LD. DR, RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND THOROUGHLY GOING T HROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, ESPECIALLY THE I MPUGNED ORDER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO DOUBT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NON-CO OPERATIVE BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THA T THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE IS TAKEN AWAY BY DECIDING THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. WE FOUND THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE, WE THINK IT PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FIL E OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . ITA NO.200(ASR)/2012 5 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6TH AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 6 TH AUGUST, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. RAMANPREET SINGH, JALANDHAR. 2. THE ITO III(3), JLR. 3. THE CIT(A), JLR. 4. THE CIT, JLR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.