Sh. Bharpur Singh Dullat, Sangrur V. ITO, Sangrur

ITA 240/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9876 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 240/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI BHARPUR SINGH DULLAT, VS THE ITO, H.NO. 278, SECTOR 21-A, WARD 1, CHANDIGARH. SANGRUR. PAN: AANPD4032E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIL BATRA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 16.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.06.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) MEERUT, CAMP AT PATIA LA DATED 19.01.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), AFTER NOTING THE FACTS OF THE CASE FURTHER NOTED THAT NOTICE HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL AND FINALLY NOTI CE WAS ISSUED FOR 19.01.2016. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE MOVED APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO NOT ICE ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) (PB-6) IN WHICH 2 THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS), MEE RUT FOR HEARING ON 19.01.2016 WITHOUT MENTIONING THE PL ACE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THEREIN THAT NOTICE WAS ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), MEERUT. THE ASSESS EE, THEREFORE, TOOK STATION LEAVE TO ATTEND THE PROCEED INGS AT MEERUT. WHEN ASSESSEE REACHED MEERUT, HE WAS INFORMED THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) WILL HEAR THE APPEAL AT HIS CAMP OFFICE AT PATIALA. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO THE ABOV E REASON, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THE DATE OF HEARING, THEREFORE, MAT TER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR HEARING ON MERITS. THE LD. DR, HOWEVER, RELIED UPO N ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. AFTER HEARING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF THE VIE W THAT MATTER REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), MEERUT FOR HEARING APPEAL ON THE DATE FIXED DID NOT CONTAIN THE ADDRESS AT WHICH LD. CIT(APPEALS) WILL HOLD THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTS THE FACT THAT AS SESSEE ATTENDED THE OFFICE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) AT MEERUT A ND THEN HE CAME TO KNOW THAT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAV E BEEN CONDUCTED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) AT CAMP OFFICE A T PATIALA. MAY BE, THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE MOVED FO R ADJOURNMENT BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BUT, THE ABOVE 3 FACTS CLEARLY MAKE OUT A CASE THAT APPEAL HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF VIO LATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE ASSESSEE GETS CONFUSED BECAUSE NO PLACE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE ISSUED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS), MEERUT. THEREFORE, ONE MORE CHANCE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17 TH JUNE, 2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, 8ITAT/CHD