M/s Chet Ram Ravi Kumar, Mukatsar V. Addl. CIT, Ludhiana

ITA 241/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68594 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• 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 NOS. 241 TO 245/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S CHET RAM RAVI KUMAR, V THE ADDL. CIT, MUKATSAR CENTRAL RANGE, LUDHIANA PAN NO. AABFC6298B & ITA NO. 246/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI RAVI KUMAR BANSAL, V THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, C/O M/S CHET RAM RAVI KUMAR, LUDHIANA MUKATSAR PAN NO. ACKPB8770A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING : 26.11.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2013 APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA 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. 241/CHD/2013 ARE AS UNDER:- 2 1. THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I LUDHIANA CONF IRMING PENALTY U/S 271-E AT RS. 14,98,000/- IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO U PHOLD THE ACTION OF LD. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LEVYING PENALTY. 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 PASSED BY IGN ORING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271-E AT RS. 14,98,000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, RS. 90,73,709/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, RS. 77,17, 672/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND AT RS. 13,06,290/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 008-09 AND U/S 271-D AT RS. 78,69,920/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 & AT RS . 54,90,283 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 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 SUBMITT ED THAT FATHER OF THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER AND HE HAD TO BE TAKEN TO DELHI FOR TREATMENT. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT MATRIMO NIAL DISPUTE WAS ALSO GOING ON BETWEEN HIS DAUGHTER AND HER HUSBAND, THEREFORE, FU RTHER TIME WAS SOUGHT TO GIVE DETAILED REPLY. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) REPRODU CED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HIS CONCLUSION AND THEN DECIDED THE ISSUES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) TO PUT FORTH THE D ETAILED FACTS AND CONTENTIONS AND THEREFORE, THE CASE SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF CIT(A). 3 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULL Y, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON FOR REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WHICH SEEMS TO BE BASED ON GOOD REASONS. FURTHER, LD. CIT(A) H AS SIMPLY REPRODUCED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ASSESSING O FFICER AND HIS CONCLUSION AND DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER:- IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC NON PROSECUTION BY THE APP ELLANT 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 ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSE D BY HIM AND REMAND THE SAME BACK TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLES TO SAY THAT A SSESSEE SHOULD ALSO COOPERATE WITH THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.11.2013. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH