Shri Daljit Singh Khurd, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 313/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63936 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

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 NO.313 /CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SH.DALJIT SINGH KHURD, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , 580-F, SBS NAGAR, LUDHIANA. PAKHOWAL ROAD, LUDHIANA. PAN: ARFPS8664N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 05.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.09.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-II, LUDHIANA DA TED 29.12.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NOS.1 T O 3 IS AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISMISSING GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO HEAR AND TO REPRESENT THE CASE. 2 3. THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ABOVE SAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER IN SUMMARY MANNER AND UPHOLDING ALL THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE MERIT IF ADDITION IN EACH CASE. 3. THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS FILED AFTER A DELAY OF SE VEN DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION O F THE DELAY AND IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF S EVEN DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE NON- SPEAKING ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FR OM THE PERUSAL OF THE APPELLATE ORDER WE FIND THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) HAD GRANTED SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE AS SESSEE HAD HAD DEFAULTED BY NON-APPEARANCE. HOWEVER, THE CIT (APP EALS) HAS ONLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SEPARATE FINDINGS IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS ADDITIO NS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE CIT(A) HAS TO PASS A SPEAKING O RDER IN RESPECT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AS LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEE M IT FIT TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSU E RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE SPEAKING ORDER AFTER ALLOWING REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE APPOINTED DATE/S OF HEARING AND PRESE NT HIS CASE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL 3 PURPOSES. WE ARE NOT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE ON MERI TS IN VIEW OF OUR SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 18 TH SEPTEMBER , 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH