R.N. Highways Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 261/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2433 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMARVEER SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 257 TO 261/CHD/2013 A.Y : 2004-05 TO 2008-09 R.N.HIGHWAYS PVT. LTD., V THE DCIT, 1139/2, HARNAM NAGAR, CC-1, MODEL TOWN, LUDHIANA. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AACCR-5465R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ROHIT GOEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AMARVEER SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 25.06.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.06.2013 ORDER PER BENCH IN ALL THESE APPEALS, IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN R AISED. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THESE CASES, ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPELLATE ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED ON EX- PARTE BASIS. THE ASSESSEE NEVER RECEIVED ANY NOTIC E AND COULD NOT PRESENT ITS CASE BECAUSE THERE WAS LOT OF FIGHT GOI NG ON BETWEEN THE DIRECTORS. THEREFORE, HE MADE A PRAYER THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SUFFICI ENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MOREOVER, THER E IS NO FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT THAT NO NOTICE WAS SERVED BECAUSE ASSESSIN G OFFICER SENT THE NOTICES THROUGH SPEED POST ON THE LAST KNOWN ADDRES S WHICH WERE RETURNED AND MANY ATTEMPTS WERE MADE FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE WHICH FAILED AND ULTIMATELY NOTICES WERE SERVED THROUGH AFFIXTUR E. 2 4. IN THE REJOINDER, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THE ISSUE OF NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL AND IN ANY CASE, HE UNDERTAKES THAT THIS ISSUE WOULD NOT AGITATED IN THE SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY. WE FIND THAT ASSESSMENT ORDERS AS WELL AS IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORD ERS HAVE BEEN PASSED ON EX-PARTE BASIS WHICH ONLY SHOWS THAT ASSE SSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRAYER OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WERE LOT OF DISPUTES GOING ON AMONGST THE DIRECTORS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT O NE OPPORTUNITY MAYBE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND REMIT THE SAME BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE WOULD NOT C HALLENGE THE ISSUE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE AS THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CHALL ENGED BEFORE US AND LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN BEFORE US NOT TO CHALLENGE THIS ISSUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JUNE, 2013. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SO OD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27 TH JUNE, 2013. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT,CHD.