Balasaheb Bapurao Lahare, Ahmednagar V. Income tax Officer,

ITA 2989/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9105 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR CHAWARE
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Non compliance
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , , . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO , AM . / ITA NO. 2 9 89 /P U N/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 - 12 SHRI BALASAHEB BAPURAO LAHARE, A/P 226, GAVTHA, SOUTH PART, SADE DEVNADI, EAST PART, SADE RAHURI, TAL. RAHURI, DIST. AHMEDNAGAR. . / APPELLANT PAN: A JWPL0133C VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 4 , AHMEDNAGAR . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR CHAWARE / DATE OF HEARING : 2 2 . 0 3 .201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26 . 0 3 .201 8 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ORDER OF CIT (A) - 2 , PUNE , DATED 14 . 1 0 .20 1 6 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11 - 12 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDE R SECTION 14 4 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL: - ITA NO. 2 9 89 /P U N/20 1 6 BALASAHEB B. LAHARE 2 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSING APPEAL ORDER EXPARTE SINCE TH E NOTICE CALLING FOR HEARING WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TIME. THE ORDER BE SET ASIDE AND BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DO COMPLETE JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW AND ON THE BASIS O F LEGAL OPINION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS NOT ACCORDING TO LAW AS THE SAME IS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF S.250(6) OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE BE CONSIDERED SYMPATHETICA LLY TO GIVE JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. 3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ASSESSEE BEING AGRICULTURIST AND RESIDENT OF SMALL INTERIOR VILLAGE IN AHM E DNAGAR DISTRICT AND UNEDUCATED WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY NOTICES SENT TO HIM. THE NOTIC ES DID NOT REACH TO HIM PROPERLY. THE NON - ATTENDANCE WOULD NOT BENEFIT HIM IN ANY WAY AS HE HAD ENTRUSTED THE APPEAL MATTERS TO ADVOCATE IN PUNE TO WHOM ALSO THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPOINTMENTS COULD NOT BE GIVEN. IN VIEW OF THIS THE ASSESSEE PRAYS THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). 3. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS AGGRIEVED BY THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND ALSO EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE STRESSED THAT THOUGH SOME NOTICES OF HEARING WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME COULD NOT BE COMPLIED WITH AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED EXPARTE UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) A LSO ALLOWED ONLY TWO DATES OF HEARING AND THEREAFTER, DISMISSED THE APPEAL EXPARTE THE ASSESSEE. HE PLEADED THAT PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. WITH REGARD TO NON COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FROM A SMALL PLACE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PLACED AT A DISTANCE FROM THE PLACE OF ASSESSEE AND HENCE, DEFAULT IN NON APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE FOR THE REVENUE STRONGLY OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ITA NO. 2 9 89 /P U N/20 1 6 BALASAHEB B. LAHARE 3 ASSESSEE AND POINTED OUT THAT DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES BEING ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS TOTAL NON COMPLIANCE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENT IONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON HIS OPERATIONS FROM RAHURI, WHICH IS IN DISTRICT OF AHMEDNAGAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN AHMEDNAGAR. THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THERE WAS NON - CO MPLIANCE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE. EVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A), THOUGH TWO OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING WERE GIVEN, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED HIS INABILITY TO APPEAL BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) HAD SENT NOTICES OF HEARING BUT THE SAME COULD NOT BE COMPLIED WITH BY ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AS SESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AND WHEN NOTICE OF HEARING IS GIVEN AND MAKE HIS SUBMISSIONS. IN OTHER WORDS, HE IS DIRECTED TO CO - OPERATE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF MARCH , 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( D.KARUNAKARA RAO ) (SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 26 TH MARCH , 201 8 . GCVSR ITA NO. 2 9 89 /P U N/20 1 6 BALASAHEB B. LAHARE 4 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELL ANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 2 , PUNE ; 4. THE PR. CIT - 1 , PUNE ; 5. 6. , , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDE R , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE