Sh. Madan Lal Dua, Pehowa V. Addl. CIT, Kurukshetra

ITA 206/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60885 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-06-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

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.206/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09)) SH.MADAN LAL DUA VS. THE ADDL.C.I.T., PROP. M/S DUA RICE MILLS, KURUKSHETRA RANGE KAITHAL ROAL, PEHOWA. KURUKSHETRA. PAN: AANPD8212C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI DATE OF HEARING : 18.06.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.06.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS), KARNAL DATED 17.11.2011 RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) 2. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TH AT THE PRELIMINARY ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE VIDE GROUND NOS.2 AND 9 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 2. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ALSO ERRED TO CONSIDER THAT NO SUFFICIENT/REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO PRODUCE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT HIS CASE A ND NEITHER THE CIT (A) ALLOWED REASONABLE TIME TO SUBMIT THE ARGUMENTS AND MATERIAL BEFORE HIM AND DECLINED TO GIVE TIME AS REQUESTED B Y THE APPELLANT. 9. THAT THE AFORESAID ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CI T (A) AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY NOT CONSIDER ING THE FACTS THAT NO SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED BY HIM TO HEAR THE CASE PROPERLY. 3. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPEARED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ON TW O OCCASIONS AND ON 2 THE THIRD OCCASION I.E. 27.10.2011 HAD SENT APPLICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT THOUGH POST ON THE GROUND OF HIS ILL HEALTH. THE C IT (APPEALS) HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THA T SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE CIT (APPEALS). 5. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APP EAL IS AGAINST THE NON-ALLOWANCE OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEING GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED F OR HEARING VIDE NOTICE DATED 16.8.2011 AND THE PROCEEDINGS WERE ADJOURNED TO 23.9.2011. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT BECAUSE OF ILL HEALTH B Y SENDING THE APPLICATION THROUGH POST WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT (APPEALS) ON 21.9.2011. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS OBSE RVED THAT IT WAS NOT PROPER WAY TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT BY SENDING APPLICATI ON THOUGH POST, HOWEVER, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 14.11.2011. T HE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SENT THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT THROUGH POST ON THE GROUND OF ILL HEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS REJ ECTED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE CIT (APPE ALS) EX-PARTE THE ASSESSEE. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT WAS NOT AFFORDED REASONABLE TIME TO SUBMIT RELEVANT MATERIAL AND PUT FORWARD ITS ARGUMENTS. 7. WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE RE QUIRE AND EVEN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT I.E. SECTION 250 REQUIRE THE CIT (APPEALS) TO AFFORD 3 REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (APPEALS) TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE DE-NOVO AFTER AFF ORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESS EE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) ON APPOINTED DATE O F HEARING AND DO NOT SEEK ADJOURNMENT UNNECESSARILY. IN VIEW THEREOF, G ROUND NO.2 AND 9 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS IN RESPECT OF THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION, WHICH ARE NOT BEING ADJUDIC ATED IN VIEW OF OUR SETTING ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CI T (APPEALS). 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND DAY OF JUNE, 2012. SD/- SD/- (T.R. SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 22 ND JUNE, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH