Anil Turkhia, Indore V. ACIT-4(1), Indore

ITA 210/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3412 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V J BORICHA
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA S
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.210 TO 213/IND/2019 A.YS. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15 & 2014-15 ANIL TURKHIA, INDORE PAN ABTPT 7760 N :: APPELLANT VS ACIT-4(1), INDORE :: RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL AND SHRI N.D. PATWA, ADVOCATES RESPONDENT BY SHRI V.J. BORICHA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 29.04.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.04.2019 O R D E R PER BENCH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-II, INDORE DATED 24.1.2018 REL ATING TO SECTION 143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, DATED 07.1.2019 RE LATING TO SECTION 271(1)(C) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, DATED 24 .1.2018 RELATING TO SECTION 144 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AND DAT ED 08.1.2019 RELATING TO SECTION 271(1)(B) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2014-15, RESPECTIVELY. 2 2. THERE IS DELAY OF ABOUT ONE YEAR IN FILING THE A PPEALS I.E. ITA NO.210 & 212/IND/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14 RELATING TO SECTION 143(3) & 2014-15 RELATING TO SECTION 144. L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS WER E NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH, THE SAME WERE DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE. THE ASSESSEE MET WITH A SEVERE ROAD ACCIDE NT IN FEB. 2016 AND FACED HEALTH RELATED CONSEQUENTIAL ISSUES THERE AFTER FOR ABOUT TWO AND HALF YEARS IN RESPECT OF WHICH MEDICAL CERTIFIC ATE IS ALSO ENCLOSED. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMIT TED THAT DUE TO BAD HEALTH AND TOTAL BUSINESS CLOSURE, THE APPEALS COUL D NOT BE FILED IN TIME. IF DELAY IS NOT CONDONED, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEP RIVED OF JUSTICE FOR NO FAULT ON HIS PART. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. SR. DR OP POSED THE REQUEST. 3. ON CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERI AL RELATED TO DELAY, WE FIND THAT FOR ABOUT TWO AND HALF YEARS, T HE ASSESSEE HAD BAD HEALTH AND BUSINESS CLOSURE, WHICH CAUSED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED HIS AFFIDAVIT. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONDONE T HE DELAY AS THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE, INACTION OR WANT OF BONA-FIDE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER A S WELL AS LD. CIT(A) VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS NO PRO PER, REASONABLE AND 3 MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE . LD. CIT(A) PASSED EX-PARTE IMPUGNED ORDERS. DUE TO BAD HEALTH AND BUSINESS CLOSURE AS NARRATED ABOVE ON ACCOUNT OF SEVERE ACCI DENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN THE POSITION TO REPRESENT THE CASE IN AP PROPRIATE AND JUST MANNER, THEREFORE, BOTH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHO ULD HAVE CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT BY PROVIDING ADEQUATE, REASO NABLE AND MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY. BUT, BOTH THE REVENUE AUTHO RITIES DID NOT AFFORD THE SAME IN THE REQUIRED MANNER. THEREFORE, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE MATTERS MAY BE DECIDED AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALL THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS MAY BE RESTORED TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. SR. DR RE LIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, HOWEVER, HE COULD NOT CONT ROVERT THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BY BRINGING ANY CONTRARY SUBMISSION/MATERIAL ON RECORD IF ISSUES AR E RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE APPEALS A FRESH. 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT APPEALS, THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED PAPER BOOK RUNNING INTO 124 PAGES, WHEREIN THE RELEVANT M EDICAL DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE BAD HEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN ANNEXED, WHICH SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOT IN POSITION TO REPRESENT THE CASE IN APPROPRIATE AND J UST MANNER AND 4 THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT APPEALS REQUIRE RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE APPEALS ARE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPE ALS AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW AND THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE/APPEAR BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.04.201 9. SD/- ( MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30.04.2019 ! VYAS ! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PR.CIT(A)/PR.CIT/DR, INDORE