M/s Sunder Mal Sat Pal, Mukatsar V. Addl. CIT, Ludhiana

ITA 237/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80869 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 237 TO 240/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S SUNDER MAL SAT PAL VS. THE ADDL. CIT, MUKATSAR CENTRAL RANGE, LUDHIANA PAN NO. AAJFS3902J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 21/08/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.09.2014 ORDER PER BENCH THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS ALL DATED 12.12.2012 OF LD. CIT(A)-I, LUDHI ANA. 2. IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEES HAVE RAISED THE COMMON GROUNDS. HOWEVER, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 237/CHD/2013 ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I LUDHIANA CONFIRMING PENALTY U/S 271D AT RS. 17,20,000/- IS A GAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO UPHOLD THE ACTION OF LD. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LEVYING PENALTY. 2 2. THAT DESPITE SPECIFIC REQUEST, THE APPELLANT WAS NO T PROVIDED WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF DEFENDING ITS CASE AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER HAS BEEN P ASSED BY IGNORING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271D AT RS. 17,20,000/-IN ASSESS MENT YEAR 2004-05 & AT RS. 28,87,000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, U/S 271 E AT RS. 35,37,000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND U/S 271D AT RS. 14,50,5 00/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 4. WHEN THE ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE AS SESSEE ON THE LAST DAY OF HEARING APPLIED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT FATHER OF THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS DIAGNOSED WITH CAN CER AND HE HAD TO BE TAKEN TO DELHI FOR TREATMENT. IT WAS ALSO POINTED O UT THAT MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE WAS ALSO GOING ON BETWEEN HIS DAUGHTER AND HER HUSB AND, THEREFORE, FURTHER TIME WAS SOUGHT TO GIVE DETAILED REPLY. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) REPRODUCED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND HIS CONCLUSION AND THEN DECIDED THE ISSUES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUNDER MAL SAT PAL SISTER CONCERN. IN ANY CASE PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GI VEN BY THE CIT(A) TO PUT FORTH THE DETAILED FACTS AND CONTENTIONS AND, THER EFORE, MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). 3 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF CIT(A). 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT IN IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF CHET RAM RAVI KUMAR MA KATSAR V ADDL CIT LUDHIANA IN ITA NOS. 241 TO 245/CHD/2013, THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED VIDE PARAS 7 & 8, WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON FOR REJECTING T HE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WHICH SEEMS TO BE BASED ON GOOD REASONS . FURTHER, LD. CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY REPRODUCED THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HIS CONCLUSIO N AND DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER:- IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC NON PROSECUTION BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. 8. THUS, THE ABOVE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT LD. CIT(A) HA D NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE ON MERITS AND EVEN ADEQUA TE OPPORTUNITY HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM AND REMAND THE SAME BACK TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION T O RE- EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLES TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD ALSO COOPERATE WITH THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A). 8. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE LD. CIT(A) H AS NOT GIVEN ANY ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY AND HAS NOT GIVEN HIS OWN FIND INGS, THEREFORE, WE REMIT 4 THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO PRO VIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUES. 9. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE IN TH E APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.09.2014 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 10 TH SEPT., 2013 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR