Smt. Gurmit Kaur, Kurukshetra V. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 232/CHANDI/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9786 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Borrowed satisfaction; Set aside; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 263; 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ “ए” , च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा य एवं ी स ु धांश ु ीवा%तव, या'यक सद%य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM ITA NO. 232/Chd/2021 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Gurmit Kaur, W/o Satwant Singh, 443, Village Mathana, Tehsil Thanesar, Kurukshetra, Haryana-136131 The Pr. CIT Rohtak PAN NO: FYWPK6308G Appellant Respondent ! " Assessee by : Shri B.M. Monga, Advocate Shri Rohit Kaura, Advocate # ! " Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT DR $ % ! & Date of Hearing : 07/06/2022 '()* ! & Date of Pronouncement : 07/06/2022 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dt. 16/03/2021 of Ld. Pr. CIT, Rohtak. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT is not justified in resorting to provisions of section 263 and thereby cancelling the assessment framed under section 143(3) rws 147. 2. That the Learned CIT is not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263, that too in gross violation of principles of natural justice and without serving the show cause Notice before passing the said order. 3. That the learned CIT has grossly erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 particularly when the order passed u/s 143(3) rws 147 is not erroneous at all and was passed after detailed scrutiny, after conducting proper inquiries, recording of statements, taking all the material facts, documents and evidences on record, whereby judicious and plausible view was taken by the AO. 2 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT has erred in assuming jurisdiction under the provisions of section 263 of the Act, based on borrowed satisfaction of the audit objections raised by the audit Party, that too on incorrect facts, without independent application of his own mind. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off. 3. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) and in passing the impugned order without serving the show cause notice. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the AO initiated the proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act for the reason that the assessee had deposited Rs. 1,08,60,000/- in her bank account. In response of the notice issue under section 148 on 11/12/2018 declaring an income of Rs. 90,200/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee submitted to the AO that she had sold her 42 Kanal agriculture land @ Rs. 22,80,000/- per acre and the amount was deposited in her bank account maintained with Punjab & Sindh Bank, Ladwa in the joint name with her son Shri Jasbir Singh. She also furnished the copy of the sale deed, bank statement and other related documents which were examined by the AO and the income was assessed at returned income of Rs. 90,200/-. Thereafter, the Ld. Pr. CIT initiated the proceedings under section 263 of the Act, he passed the impugned order exparte by observing that notice under section 263 of the Act was issued on 02/03/2021 and in response the said notice the assessee neither submitted any explanation nor furnished any communication. The Ld. Pr. CIT cancelled the assessment order passed by the AO and directed him to pass fresh order in accordance with law. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no notice under section 263 of the Act was received by the assessee, therefore, the Ld. Pr. CIT was not justified in passing the impugned order exparte. He further submitted that all the documents asked by the AO were furnished which were examined by him, therefore the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3 7. In his rival submissions the Ld. CIT DR strongly supported the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT and reiterated the observations made in the impugned order. 8. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the Ld. Pr. CIT passed the impugned order exparte, he simply stated that the notice under section 263 was issued to the assessee and there was no compliance. However, nothing is brought on record to substantiate that the said notice for hearing was served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned, unheard as per the maxim, “audi alteram partem”. 9. We therefore keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the Ld. Pr. CIT to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 07/06/2022 ) Sd/- Sd/- स ु धांश ु ीवा%तव एन.के.सैनी, (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ( N.K. SAINI) या'यक सद%य/ JUDICIAL MEMBER उपा य / VICE PRESIDENT AG Date: 07/06/2022 ( + ! , - . - Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 0 1 The CIT(A) 5. - 2 ग 4 5 & 4 5 678 ग9 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. ग 8 : % Guard File