The Daffodil Co-op Group Housing Society, Panchkula V. ITO, W-5, Panchkula

ITA 235/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4126 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHAY SETHI SHRI S K MUKHI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCHES, SMC CHANDIGARH !', # $ BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.235/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DAFFODIL CO - OP GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY, GH-50, SCO- 20, PANCHKULA. VS. THE ITO, WARD-5 PANCHKULA-HARYANA ./ PAN NO: AABTT2033M / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT !' # $ / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ABHAY SETHI, SHRI S.K. MUKHI, ADVOCATE % # $ / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH & ' # '(/ DATE OF HEARING : 14/08/2019 )*+, # '(/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/8/2019 %&/ ORDER PER DIVA SINGH , JM: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 28/12/ 2018 OF CIT(A)-4, LUDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2010 11 ASSESSME NT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE APPEAL FILED ON DATED 27/11/2017 AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. A.O. DATED 10/10/2017 (ORDER RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE DATED 31/10/ 2017) WHICH WAS WELL IN ITA 235/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 2 TIME. AS THE APPEAL WAS WELL IN TIME SO THERE WAS N O NEED OF FILING APPLICATION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY. 2. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOR GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND ALSO NO QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED AND HAS DONE THE CASE E X-PARTE IN ARBITRARY MANNER WHICH WAS AGAINST PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE AND TAKEN THE DECISION IN HARASSED MANNER WHEN THERE WAS SUFFICIENT TIME F OR TIME-BARRING THE CASE. . 3. ANY OTHER GROUND WHICH MAY BE TAKEN WITH THE PERMIS SION OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. RIGHT AT THE OUTSET LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO. 36 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE'S ADDRESS AS SHOWN IN THE CAUSE TITLE IN THE SAID FOR M MAY BE TAKEN FOR COMMUNICATION ETC. ALONGWITH ADDRESS GIVE N IN THE SPECIFIC FORM. ACCORDINGLY, THE TWO ADDRESSES AS; THE DAFFODIL CO-OP GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY, GH-50, SECTOR-20, PANCHKULA-134109 AND CA UPKAR SINGH, SCO-46 IIND FLOOR, SECTOR 20C, CHANDIGARH. BE TAKEN ON RECORD. 3. INVITING ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PARTICIPATE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS THE NOTICES STATED TO HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WERE NEVER RECEIVED. A PRAYER WAS MADE FOR REMAND BACK TO THE A.O. THE LD. AR WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRE SS HIS ITA 235/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 3 ARGUMENTS AS TO WHY A REMAND BE MADE TO THE AO AS L ACK OF PARTICIPATION IS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. AR INV ITED ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.10.2017 PASSED U/S 144/147 OF THE ACT SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PA RTICIPATE BEFORE THE AO AS IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT PRESUMA BLY DUE TO SOME CONFUSION, THE SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY TO WHO M THE NOTICE WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED DID NOT PARTI CIPATE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REMAND BACK TO THE AO IS SOU GHT. IN THIS BACKGROUND, ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO GROUND NO . 2 RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. THE LD. CIT-DR CONSIDERING THE RECORD AND THE RE QUEST AGREED THAT FOR ALL CONCERNED, IT WOULD BE APPROPRI ATE TO REMAND BACK THE ISSUE TO THE AO AS IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE AO HAS ALSO PASSED AN EXPARTE ORDER AND W HATEVER EXPLANATION THE ASSESSEE WOULD SEEK TO GIVE FOR THE DEPOSIT OF THE CASH IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT, IT WILL NEED TO BE VE RIFIED BY THE AO. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IT IS SE EN THAT CERTAIN DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 31,53,000/- WERE NOTICED IN A SPECIFIC BANK ACCOUNT. AFTER SEEKING APPROPRIATE A PPROVALS ITA 235/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 4 AND ISSUANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICES ETC, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS AS PRESUMABLY THE IN FORMATION SOUGHT FROM THE BANK U/S 133(6), THE ADDRESS AVAILA BLE WAS AN OLD ADDRESS WHICH IS SEEN TO BE GH-59, SECTOR 20, PANCHKULA. IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ITAT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS SHOWN ITS ADDRESS AS GH-50, SECTOR 20, PANCHKULA. IT IS SEEN THAT THE NOTICES SENT BY TH E LD. CIT(A) ALSO, MAY HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE OLD ADDRESS. A PER USAL OF PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT THE FATE OF THE FIRST NOTICE IS NOT KNOWN, HOWEVER NOTICE DATED 13.12.2018 FIXIN G THE DATE OF HEARING AS 26.12.2018 CAME BACK WITH THE COMMENT LEFT. ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND MATERIAL AVA ILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO ACCEPT THE PRAY ER OF THE PARTIES AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN INTERESTS IS ADVISED TO MAKE FU LL AND PROPER COMPLIANCES BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY AS FAILING WH ICH IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE AO SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS AN ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. ITA 235/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 5 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST AUGUST,2019. SD/- !', ( DIVA SINGH) # $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER AG/POONAM *- # './ 0/'/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. & 1'/ CIT 4. & 1' ()/ THE CIT(A) 5. /45 '6, ( 6, 89:5;/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 5: <'/ GUARD FILE *- & / BY ORDER, = % / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR