Jarnail Singh, Jagraon V. ITO Ward-1(1), Jagraon

ITA 244/CHANDI/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8233 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 147; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCHES, SMC CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.244/CHD/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011-12 SHRI JARNAIL SINGH VILLAGE SALEMPURA P.O. SIDHWAN BET, LUDHIANA VS. THE ITO , WARD - 1(1) JAGRAON PAN NO: AABCD9808P APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SMT. MEENAKSHI VOHRA, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 06/01/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/01/2021 ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-3, LUDHIANA DT. 20/09/2019. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L: 1. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS APPEAL EX-PARTY, H ENCE THE APPEAL SHOULD BE SET ASIDE. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS O F APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSE ON MERITS ON THE BASIS OF ORIGINAL RECORDS WITH THE A.O., HENCE THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE SAME AFTER SET A SIDE. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ASSUMPTIO N OF JURISDICTION WITHOUT VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148, HENCE THE I SSUE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES TO LEAVE, AMEND, ALTER, TAKE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE E XPARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE A.O. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUN T INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS 2 UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S 148 OF THE ACT, 1961 (HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). THE A.O. MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED, HE THEREFORE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 47,00 ,000/- WHICH WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAIN ED WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY PASSING THE EXPARTE ORDER A ND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O. WAS NEVER SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. BY PASSING THE EXPARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN HER RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A. O. AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) PROVIDED AMPLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AS SESSEE, HOWEVER THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE. AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO ALTERNATIVE EX CEPT TO PASS THE EXPARTE ORDER BY THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY TH E DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE A.O. WHILE PASSING THE EXPARTE ORDER MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST AS WELL AS THROUGH AFFIXTURE, HOWEVER NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT AS TO WHETHE R THE NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE OR NOT AND THAT EVEN IF IT WAS TH ROUGH AFFIXTURE, WHETHER IT WAS 3 ON THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE OR NOT, IN THE PRESE NCE OF TWO INDEPENDENT WITNESSES. SIMILARLY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE PASSING T HE EXPARTE ORDER HAD MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 26/08/2019 FOR HEARIN G ON 13/09/2019 AND ON THE SAID DATE THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 20/09/2019 ON T HE BASIS OF ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION RECEIVED. SHE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ON 20/09/2019 NONE ATTENDED. HOWEVER IT IS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE NOTICE FOR HEARING ON 20/09/2019 WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE IT IS SIMPLY MENTIONED THAT THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED AND T HE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 20/09/2019 BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE SA ID DATE WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED, UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM, AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM . 9. I THEREFORE BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF A.O. TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE A ND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 06/01/2021. SD/- ( N.K. SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 06/01/2021 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. GUARD FILE