SHRI SATISH WATTAL, JAMMU V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR

ITA 287/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2845 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 287/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Satish Wattal, 38, Mahinder Nagar, Canal Road, Jammu [PAN: AAFPW 4017N] Vs. DCIT, Circle-3 Srinagar, Kashmir (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Written Submission. Respondent by: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 11.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 27.06.2022 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1, Amritsar [in brevity CIT(A)], bearing appeal case number 117/2009-10 date of order 29/01/2019 passed under section 250(6) of Page 2 of 6 Income Tax Act, 1961 [in brevity the Act]. The impugned order was arising out from the order of the Ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Srinagar passed under section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 11/12/2019 for Assessment year 2007- 08. 2. The Grounds of the assessee are as follows: - 1. that the appeal is in time. 2. that the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against facts of the case & law. 3. that the appeal has been decided without any service of valid notices on the assessee since the notice’s have been address than address for communication declared in Form—35. 4. that the dismissal of appeal without considering the submissions filed which have been grossly overlooked in order passed is against the principals of natural justice. 5. that on the facts & the appellant had a reasonable cause in not attending the proceedings. Thus, the dismissal of appeal order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Appeals is fit to be quashed. Page 3 of 6 6. that the assessee craves leave to amend, alter or to raise any other grounds at the time of hearing of appeal. 3. We advert the fact of the case. The appeal of the assessee was passed exparty related assessment year 2007–08. Inform 35 of Income Tax Rule, 1962 the assessee mentioned the communication address of appeal proceeding which is as follows: - Sh. Satish Wattal, C/O M/s Peer & Co, CA’s. House no-75, Sector-C, Indra Nagar, Srinagar, Kashmir. The assessee’s claim was that the notice was issued in different address in Jammu. Finally, a notice was received. The hearing was fixed in Srinagar Camp Office. On 02/07/2013 at 4:30 PM the learned Council of the assessee, Shri R.L.Peer appeared & filed written submission before the ld CIT(A). The hearing was partly hard and adjourned for the next day. After that, no communication from the end of revenue. The assessee suo- moto filed two letters to ld CIT(A) on dated 19/01/2015 and through email on dated 28/06/2018. The claim of the assessee Page 4 of 6 was that he was not communicated for appeal hearing. The exparty order was passed and the addition of the learned AO was upheld by the learned CIT(A). Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before us for further adjudication. 4. During the appeal hearing before ITAT, the assessee was unable to appear & requested to adjudicate the hearing on basis of the paper book filed by him. The paper book is containing number 1 to 35 pages which is kept in the record. Preliminary observation is that the assessee was not properly communicated for appeal hearing. The address of communication mentioned in the form 35 in column number 12 is not similar with the assessee’s address mentioned in the impugned order. The assessee suomoto submitted two letters to the learned appellate authority for completion of the appeal proceeding. In any case the assessee should not be called negligent in participating in appeal proceeding. 5. We considered the documents available on record. In our opinion the assessee cannot be called negligent. The assessee suo-moto informed the revenue for disposal of appeal. The copies of letters are annexed in APB page 16-17. We relied on Page 5 of 6 order of ITAT in the case of Ms. Swati Pawa vs DCIT, ITA- 3096-3097/Del/2016, DOP-22/04/2019 & Shri Ajay Sharma vs DCIT, ITA no-3655/Del/2016 DOP-27/04/2018. It is fact that the address mentioned in the form number 35 and the order of the CIT (A) is different. In order the learned appellate authority did not discuss the merit of the case as per the ground. Even the absence of assessee speaking order can be passed on basis of the available records. The Council of the assessee filed a written submission on dated 02/07/2013. The learned CIT (A) did not take cognizance of the assessee’s submission during adjudication of the appeal hearing. The ld CIT-DR also accepted the fact and made consent for further adjudication. We, therefore, find that the impugned order dismissing the appeal in limine cannot be sustained. It is crystal clear that the assessee was eager to complete the appeal hearing. The reasonable opportunity was denied during the passing of order. We are setting aside the impugned order to learned CIT (A) for further adjudication and direct to pass speaking order. On the other hand, the assessee should get reasonable opportunity for redressal of his grievance. Page 6 of 6 6. In the result the grounds of the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.06.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr. PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T (6) The Guard File True Copy By Order