Sat Pal Kaur, Panchkula V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 254/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5092 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Keywords: Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Documents seized
• Section: 153A; 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, ACOCUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 254/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 MS. SAT PAL KAUR, VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE I I, PANCHKULA CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AIEPK0691F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. N.K.SAINI RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 21.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.06.2016 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-3, GURGAON DATED 10.12.2014 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS AGAINST FACTS AND LAW. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW & FACTS IN PAS SING ORDER U/S 250 (EX-PARTE WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE.) 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN C ONFIRMING ADDITION MADE OF RS.56,89,795/-WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN C ONFIRMING ADDITION MADE ON SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT SEIZED DURI NG THE SEARCH 2 FROM HER POSSESSION IN RESPECT OF WHICH A NOTICE UN DER SECTION 153A WAS ISSUED TO HER. 3. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 153A (1)(B) READ WITH SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT' ). THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 56,89,800/-. UPON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED AN EX. PARTE ORDER. IN THIS REGARD, PARA 8.1 OF CIT(A)S ORDER MAY BE GAINFULLY REFERRED HEREIN UNDER:- 8.1 I HAVE GIVEN THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AND RE ASON FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S144 IN PARA 2 ABOVE. NEITHER SHE NOR HER AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED ANY PROCEEDI NGS BEFORE THE AO. SHE HAS ALSO NOT RESPONDED TO ANY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO HER. ON A PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF FACT IT IS SEEN TH AT SHE HAS ATTRIBUTED THE NON-PROVIDING OF THE COPIES OF SEIZED MATERIALS TO THE AO. HOWEVER IN THE SAME BREATHE; SHE HAS MENTIONED THAT THE COPIES WERE SUPPLIED AFTER ANOTHER APPLICATION IN 05.7.201 3. THUS IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN LA CKADAISICAL. THUS NO BENEFIT OF DOUBT CAN BE GIVEN TO HER AND TH ESE GROUNDS ARE THEREFORE DISMISSED. THEREAFTER LD. CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO AFFIRM ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE US. 5. AT THE OUTSET, IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS REFERRED TO THE PARAGRA PH 8.1 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER REPRODUCED HEREIN ABOVE. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ONLY ONE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH COULD NOT BE SERVED TO HER AS SHE WAS OUT OF STATION. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GRA NTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF 3 BEING HEARD. THE LD. COUNSEL PRAYED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO PROPERLY CANVASS HER CASE. 6. PER CONTRA, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS N OT COOPERATED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO AND HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, LD. DR DID NOT HAVE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION IN REMIT TING THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO CANVASS THE APPEAL . 7. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION, THAT INTEREST OF JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED IF THE ISSUE IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AF RESH AFTER BEING GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE LD. COU NSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO GIVEN AN UNDERTAKING THAT HE SHALL PRESENT HIMSELF BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUO MOTO WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER T O CANVASS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. WE MAY MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE HAVE NOT CONS IDERED THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. 8. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.06.2016 SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 21 ST JUNE, 2016 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 4