DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh V. Sh. Jitendra Singh, Chandigarh

ITA 276/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4255 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH GUPTA
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A , CHANDIGARH , ! '# $ % & '# , BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.276/CHD/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 & ./ ITA NO.278/CHD/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 THE D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, CHANDIGARH. SH.JITENDRA SINGH, H.NO.1620, SECTOR 18D, CHANDIGARH. ./PAN NO: ACJPS6832K & ./ ITA NOS.1515 TO 1521/CHD/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 TO 2014-15 SH.JITENDRA SINGH, H.NO.1620, SECTOR 18D, CHANDIGARH. THE A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, CHANDIGARH. ./PAN NO: ACJPS6832K /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, ADV. / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHISH GUPTA, CIT DR ! ' /DATE OF HEARING : 02.05.2019 #$%& ' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10.05.2019 ITA NOS.276 & 278/CHD/2018 A.YS. 20 12-13 & 2014-15 & ITA NOS.1515 TO 1521/CHD/2018 A.YS. 20 08-09 TO 2014-15 2 /ORDER PER BENCH: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE A ND HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BOTH BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE RE VENUE, CHALLENGING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, GURGAON, [IN SHORT CIT(A)] SEPAR ATELY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y) 2008-09 TO 2014-15, U/S 250(6 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT ). IT WAS COMMON GROUND THAT THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS WERE SIMILAR. ALL THE APPEALS WERE, THEREFORE, HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEI NG DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 21.2.2014. THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT U/S 153A READ WIT H SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED ON THE ASSESSE E FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS, MAKING SEVERAL ADDITIONS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE. THE ASSESSE E FILED APPEAL TO THE LD.CIT(A) AGAINST THE AFORESAID ITA NOS.276 & 278/CHD/2018 A.YS. 20 12-13 & 2014-15 & ITA NOS.1515 TO 1521/CHD/2018 A.YS. 20 08-09 TO 2014-15 3 ASSESSMENT ORDERS, WHO PARTLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE S APPEALS. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE HAVE COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. 4. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE LD.CIT(A) I N ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED HAD PASSED EX-PARTE ORDERS. IT WAS POINTED OUT FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEALS WERE DISMISSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) FOR NON REPRESENTATION, AS ON THE DATE MENTIONED IN THE ORDERS, THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT PARTICIPATE. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT TH E LD.CIT(A) ADJUDICATED THE VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM ON MERITS EX-PARTE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS SINCE THE NOTICES WERE NOT RECEIVED BY HIM. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS.276 & 278/CHD/2018 A.YS. 20 12-13 & 2014-15 & ITA NOS.1515 TO 1521/CHD/2018 A.YS. 20 08-09 TO 2014-15 4 WAS CORRECT BUT STILL THE NOTICES FOR THE SPECIFIC DATES WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE APPEALS BE RESTORED BACK FO R ADJUDICATION AFRESH AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PARTICIPATE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PLACE F RESH EVIDENCES ON RECORD WHICH WOULD NEED TO BE VERIFIED BY THE A.O.. THE LD.COUNSEL PLEADED THAT THE APPEALS THEREFORE BE RESTORED BACK TO THE A.O. FOR ADJUDIC ATION AFRESH. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TH AT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES BELONGING TO THE GROUP WHI CH HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO SEARCH ACTION AND WHEREIN ALS O BOTH THE A.O. AND THE CIT(A) ORDERS WERE EX-PARTE ORDERS, THE ITAT HAD RESTORED BACK THE APPEALS TO T HE AO. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S KUDOS HOLDINGS PVT. LTD ., M/S KUDOS AGROHOLS LTD., M/S KUDOS CHEMIE LTD. IN ITA NO.1134 TO 1146/CHD/2018 DATED 28-0319,COPY OF WHICH WAS PLACED BEFORE US AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF ITA NOS.276 & 278/CHD/2018 A.YS. 20 12-13 & 2014-15 & ITA NOS.1515 TO 1521/CHD/2018 A.YS. 20 08-09 TO 2014-15 5 DIRECTOR OF THE AFORESAID COMPANIES ,SHRI KABIR SO DHI IN ITA NO.1300 TO 1301/CHD/2018 DATED 20.3.2019, COPY OF WHICH WAS ALSO PLACED BEFORE US 6. THE LD. DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE APPEALS IN T HE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEES RELATING TO THE SAME GROUP HAD B EEN RESTORED BACK TO THE A.O. BY THE I.T.A.T. ON NOTING THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) WERE EX-PARTE ORDERS AS ALSO THOSE PASSED BY THE A.O. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDOUBTED LY, BOTH THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND THE CIT(A)S ORDERS WERE EX-PARTE ORDERS AND THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STAT ED AT BAR THAT THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY COULD NOT BE ATTENDED SINCE THE NOTICES I SSUED FOR HEARING OF THE APPEALS WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE. FURTHER WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL S IN THE CASE OF OTHER COMPANIES AND IN THE CASE OF DIRECTO R OF THE COMPANIES BELONGING TO THE SAME GROUP AS THE ASSESS EE, WHICH WAS SEARCHED AND IN WHICH CASE ALSO, THE ORD ERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE EX-PARTE ORDER S, HAVE BEEN RESTORED BACK BY THE ITAT TO THE A.O. FOR ADJU DICATION ITA NOS.276 & 278/CHD/2018 A.YS. 20 12-13 & 2014-15 & ITA NOS.1515 TO 1521/CHD/2018 A.YS. 20 08-09 TO 2014-15 6 AFRESH. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT EVEN THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE EX-PARTE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN T WO ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 8. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONSIDER IT FIT TO RESTORE THE IMPUGNED APPEALS BAC K TO THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE AND EFFECTIVE O PPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WHILE SO DIRECTING, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT ABUSE THE TRUST R EPOSED ON IT, IN WHICH CASE THE A.O. SHALL BE FREE TO PASS AN ORDER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- $ % & '# (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER () /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER +$ /DATED: 10 TH MAY, 2019 * # * ITA NOS.276 & 278/CHD/2018 A.YS. 20 12-13 & 2014-15 & ITA NOS.1515 TO 1521/CHD/2018 A.YS. 20 08-09 TO 2014-15 7 $'( )*+* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. , / THE APPELLANT 2. (-, / THE RESPONDENT 3. . / CIT 4. . ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. */0( 1 , '1 , 23405 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 046! / GUARD FILE $' / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR