Shri Sewa Singh , Kharar V. ITO, W-6(4), Mohali

ITA 296/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7801 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GEETINDER MANN J
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH B, CHANDIGARH .., ! '# #$ %, & '( BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, J M ITA NO.296/CHD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI SEWA SINGH #324, GURU NANAK COLONY BADALA ROAD, KHARAR, MOHALI THE ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI PAN NO: ABNPS9889H APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJMOHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE #!' REVENUE BY : SMT. GEETINDER MANN, JCIT(DR) $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 21/01/2020 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/01/2020 ')/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 21/12/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-2, CHANDIGARH. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE IN LIMIN E WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN REOPE NING THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IN AS MUCH AS THERE HAS BEEN NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AND NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE MANDATORY STATUT ORY REQUIREMENTS AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJU STIFIED. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 62,80,000/- WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,883/- BEING INTERES T RECEIVED ON SAVING BANK WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS, A RBITRARY, OPPOSED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THUS UNTENABLE. 3. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L RELATES TO THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING PROPE R AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 12,80,000/- IN HIS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ACCOUNT NO. 02660001000095861 IN THE F.Y. 2009-10 RELEVANT TO A .Y. 2010-11. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THEREFORE THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSIT S OF RS. 62,80,000/- WAS UNEXPLAINED. THE A.O. REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDING FOR THE A.Y. 2010- 11 BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANC E TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED EX-PARTE AND T HE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED AT AN INCOME OF RS. 64,19,823/- BY TREATING THE AMO UNT OF RS. 62,80,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME EARNED FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER EX-PARTE BY OBSERVING THA T THE NOTICES WERE SENT THROUGH SPEED POST BUT NOBODY APPEARED IN RESPONSE TO THOSE NOTICES. LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO N OTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. BY PASSING THE EX-PA RTE ORDER. 3 8. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR SUPPORTED TH E IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE NOTICE FOR HEARING ALTHOUGH CLAIMED TO BE SENT BY SPEED POST WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS W ELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED, UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM, AUD I ALTERAM PERTAM . WE, THEREFORE BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF NATUR AL JUSTICE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT( A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/01/2020) SD/- SD/- #$ % .., (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAI NI) & '(/ JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 21/01/2020 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE