M/s. Associated Builders (HMPS), Sopore (J&K) V. The Income-tax Officer, Srinagar

ITA 259/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 25920914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: BHAGAT ITP; SHIVEIN SEHGAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 259 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 PAN: AAJFA2436P M/S ASSOCIATED BUILDERS(HMPS), VS. INCOME TAX OFFI CER, SEGIPORA SOPORE WARD-IV, SRINAGAR (J&K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. M.R. BHAGAT, ITP & SH. SHIVEIN SEHGAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR DATE OF HEARING: 09.10.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.10.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.02.2013 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), JA MMU, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THE APPELLATE ORDER IS ILLEGAL, PERVERSE, ARBITRARY , NOT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF DEATH OF TH E AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE NOTICE OF HEARI NG ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND TURMOIL IN THE VALLEY OF KASHMIR WERE NOT SERVED AND LAW INVOLVED IN THE ISS UE DISCUSSED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE APPEL LATE ORDER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). 2 I.T.A. NO. 259 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 II. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SECOND LINE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD MENTIONED THAT REFUND OF RS. 6,38,760/- WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, TO HOLD THAT APPEAL WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE FOR NON-PA YMENT OF ADMITTED TAX. IT IS PRAYED THAT THAT FINDINGS OF TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) MAY BE VACATED. III. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPE AL WAS OUT OF TIME SIMPLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SENT BY REGISTERED POST AND WAS NOT RECEIVED BACK KNOWING F ULLY WELL THAT DUE TO DISTURBED CONDITIONS AND TURMOIL IN THE VALL EY THE SYSTEM OF DELIVERY OF LETTERS HAD BEEN BADLY DISRUPTED AND TH ERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF SERVICE OF THE DEMA ND NOTICE AND ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A ) MAY KINDLY BE VACATED. IV. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED NOT TO ADJUDICATE THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL BY IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED BACK T O THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) V. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ANY GROUND(S) O F APPEAL OR ADD ANY NEW GROUND(S) OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL I S FINALLY HEARD. 2) THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES; THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO RE PEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3) AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVE N REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE HIM AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE , WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE I MPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), JAMMU, MAY BE CANCELLED AND THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE 3 I.T.A. NO. 259 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 MAY BE SET ASIDE TO LEARNED CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SA ME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4) ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5) WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORD AVAILABLE WITH US, SPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PAS SED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLANT AUTHORITY. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLANT AUTHORITY FIXED THE APPEAL FOR HEARING THIRTEEN TIMES BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CO- OPERATE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE LEARNE D FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY H OLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. BUT TODAY I.E. 09.10.2013, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE APPEARED AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE BEFORE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AN D REQUESTED THAT THE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLA IM BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 6) KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE PRESENT CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED VIEW THAT THE ISSUE DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE TO LEARNED CIT(A), JAMMU, FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CANCEL THE 4 I.T.A. NO. 259 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.02.2013 PASSED BY LEARNED C IT(A), JAMMU AND SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF LEARN ED CIT(A), JAMMU, TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFTER AFFORDIN G FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM. IT IS AL SO MADE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT AND WILL FULLY CO- OPERATE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), JAMMU, AND IF IT DOES NOT DO SO, THE LEARNED CIT(A), JAMMU, IS AT LIBERTY TO DECIDE THE CASE EX PARTE . 1) IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH OCTOBER, 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 9 TH OCTOBER, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S ASSOCIATED BUILDERS(HMPS), SEGIPO RA SOPORE 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-IV, SRINAGAR (J&K) 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU 4. THE CIT, JAMMU 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.