Smt. Shashi Jain, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-VII(2), Ludhiana

ITA 326/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9210 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 271(1)(c); 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B , CHANDIGARH , !'# $' % & , '( BEFORE: SH.SANJAY GARG, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A M ./ ITA NO.362/CHD/2017 & ./ ITA NO.326/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 SMT.SHASHI JAIN, B-XIX-549/A, COLLEGE ROAD, CIVIL LINES, LUDHIANA. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD VI(2), LUDHIANA. ./PAN NO: ABNPJ4547M /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GAURAV SHARMA, CA ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI HEMANT GUPTA, SR.DR '# $ /DATE OF HEARING : 14.11.2018 %&'(# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :17.12.2018 ') /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : BOTH THE CAPTIONED APPEALS RELATE TO THE SAME ASSES SEE AND ARE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, LUDHIANA (IN SHORT CIT(A), DATED 31.8.2016 & 15.12.2017 RESPECTIVELY .WHILE THE APPE AL IN ITA NO.362/CHD/2017 IS AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT), THE APPEAL I N ITA NO.326/CHD/2018 IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF PE NALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE ADDITION SO UPHELD . SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS WERE INTERRELAT ED ,THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY A CONS OLIDATED ORDER. 2 ALSO SINCE THE OUTCOME OF THE QUANTUM APPEAL MAY HA VE A BEARING ON THE ADJUDICATION OF THE PENALTY APPEAL, WE SHALL FIRST BE TAKING UP THE APPEAL FILED IN QUANTUM PROCEEDING S IN ITA NO.362/CHD/2017 . 2. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AO) REOPENED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 147 OF THE ACT, ON INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD RECEIVED GIFT OF RS.9,00,000/- FROM ONE SHRI SUBHASH DUGGAL, WHO WAS NEITHER RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE, NOR WAS THERE ANY OCCASION FOR GIFT. NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE A SSESSEE, BUT NEITHER ANY RETURN WAS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE SAM E, NOR WERE THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ATTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, EX-PARTE ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED, MAKI NG THE ADDITION OF THE GIFT AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOU RCES. 3. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT( A), WHO REFUSED TO ADMIT THE APPEAL SINCE THE APPEAL FILED WAS DELAYED BY 136 DAYS AND NEITHER ANY APPLICATION WAS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY, NOR ANY EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR THE DELAY. THE CIT(A) FURTHER UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ON MERI TS HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION MADE WAS JUSTIFIED SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT RECEIVED. THE CIT (A) ALSO UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 147 OF THE ACT , STATING THAT THERE WERE JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR THE SAME SINCE T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RESPONDED TO THE ENQUIRY LETTER ISSUED VIS--VI S THE IMPUGNED ISSUE, BEFORE REOPENING OF THE CASE AND, THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HELD, THE A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN BE LIEVING THAT THE GIFT WAS NOT GENUINE. 3 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US, RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,00,000/- MADE BY HIM ON ARBITRARY AND ESTIMATED BASIS. 3. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED LATE WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) EVE N WHEN NO OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT D URING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO SHOW THE REAS ONABLE CAUSE. 4. THAT, THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN WHEN THERE WAS NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE OPENING THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 5. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DOCUMENTS RELAT ING TO THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR OF TH E GIFT AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION DURING THE COURS E OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN SUFFICIENT O PPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FIL ING AN APPEAL WITH THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEAR D OR DISPOSED OFF. 5. THE APPEAL WAS INITIALLY HEARD ON 24.7.2017 AND DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION VIDE ORDER DATED 3.8.2017. THER EAFTER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RECALLING THE ORDER WHICH WAS ALLOWED VIDE ORDER PASSED IN MA NO.11/CHD/2017 DATED 1.3.2018. THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING AFRESH. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED T HAT THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS ALSO DELAYED IN FILING BY 106 DA YS. THE LD. 4 COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT AN APPLICATIO N REQUESTING CONDONATION OF DELAY HAD BEEN FILED ALONGWITH THE A PPEAL REFERRING TO THE SAME. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED TH AT THE DELAY WAS ATTRIBUTED TO HIS PART SINCE BY MISTAKE AND DUE TO HEAVY WORK WITH THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THE SET OF DOCUMEN TS DELIVERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIM FOR FILING THE APPEAL TO THE IT AT, I.E. I) FORM NO.36 DULY VERIFIED, II) FEE FOR FILING APPEAL BEFO RE THE I.T.A.T. AND, III) POWER OF ATTORNEY, WERE MISPLACED AND WER E FORGOTTEN TO BE FILED TO THE REGISTRY AND IT WAS ONLY LATER ON T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE DETECTED HIS MISTAKE AND FILED THE APP EAL IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSE E CONTENDED THAT THE APPEAL SET CONTAINING AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAD ALL BEEN PREPARED WELL BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF THE APPEAL. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT WHILE THE CIT(A)S ORDER PASSED ON 31.8.2016 WAS RECEIVED IN THE FIRST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER AND THE APP EAL TO THE I.T.A.T. WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED WITHIN 60 DAYS TH EREAFTER I.E. BY THE END OF OCTOBER, 2016, THE APPEAL SET HAD BEEN P REPARED BY THE ASSESSEE BY 26 TH OCTOBER ITSELF WITH THE FORM NO.36 DULY VERIFIED ON 21.10.2016 BY THE ASSESSEE, THE FILING FEE DEPOS ITED ON 25.10.2016 AND THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DULY ATTESTED FROM THE NOTARY ON 26.10.2016 AND IT WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE MISTAKE OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT THE DELAY OCCU RRED. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE CONTENTS OF THE APPLICAT ION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AS UNDER: SUB: CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE HON'BLE BENCH RESPECTED SIR/MADAM, WITH DUE RESPECT TO THE HON'BLE MEMBERS, IT IS HUMB LY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) IN THE CASE OF THE ABOVE SAID ASSESSEE WAS PASSED ON 31.08. 2016 AND THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED IN THE FIRST WEEK OF SEP TEMBER, 2016. 5 THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ABOVE SAID ORDER WAS TO BE F ILED WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF CI T(A). ACTUALLY THE SET OF DOCUMENTS FOR FILING AN APPEAL, AS PER THE PRESCRIBED NORMS, WERE PREPARED UP TILL 26.10.2016. THIS CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE FOLLOWING FACTS: 1. FORM NO. 36 WAS VERIFIED ON 21.10.2016 BY THE APP ELLANT; 2. THE FEE FOR FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITA T WAS FILED ON 25.10.2016; AND 3. THE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS ATTESTED FROM THE NOTA RY PUBLIC ON 26.10.2016. THIS SET OF DOCUMENTS WAS DELIVERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS COUNSEL ON 26.10.2016, BUT THIS SET OF DOCUMENTS WA S NOT FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH IN TIME DUE TO THE MISTAKE OF THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSE E HAS STARTED HIS FIRM IN THE NAME OF 'SHARMA GAURAV & ASSOC IATES' IN THE YEAR 2016 AND IS MAJORLY IN THE INCOME TAX PRAC TICE. THE COUNSEL WAS HANDLING GOOD NUMBER OF CASES, AT ASSES SMENT LEVEL AND LD. CIT (APPEAL) LEVEL AND HON'BLE ITAT L EVEL, DURING THE YEAR 2016. THE COUNSEL WAS WORKING ALONE DURING T HE YEAR 2016, WITHOUT ANY HELPER. DUE TO THE BURDEN OF WORK AND DOCUMENTATION IN VARIOUS CASES, THE COUNSEL MISPLACED THE ABOVE SAID SET OF DOCUMENTS AND FORGOT TO FILE AN APPEAL IN THE CASE OF ABOVE SAID ASSESSEE. NOW AT THE TIME OF PROPER RECORD MAINTENANCE, THE C OUNSEL FOUND THE ABOVE SAID SET OF DOCUMENTS AND IS NOW FILIN G THE SAME BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED TO YOUR HONOUR TO CONDONE THE DELAY CAUSED IN FILING THE ABOVE SAI D APPEAL, AS THERE IS NO MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ABOVE SAID A SSESSEE BUT THE MISTAKE HAS BEEN ON THE PART OF THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. FURTHER AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSE SSEE ADMITTING TO HIS MISTAKE ON OATH WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE US. 8. AT THIS JUNCTURE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE WA S ASKED AT BAR TO FIRST JUSTIFY THE DELAY BEFORE THE CIT(A) AN D WHY THE ACT OF THE CIT(A) IN NOT ADMITTING THE APPEAL WAS NOT JUST IFIED. 8.1 TO THIS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE DELAY OCCURRED FOR NO FAULT OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE A LL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT AND EVEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE SENT TO THE WRONG ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WER E, THEREFORE, NEVER RECEIVED BY HIM AND IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ON THE ADDITION MADE, TH E NOTICE 6 RELATING TO WHICH WERE SENT AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE BECAME AWARE OF THE FACT THAT AN ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED AND CONSEQUENTLY APPROACHED THE A.O. FOR THE SAME AND ON PROCURING THE SAME IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER FILED THE APPEAL TO THE CIT(A). LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR AT TENTION TO HIS SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE US IN WRITING, NARRATING T HE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IN THIS REGARD AS UNDER: 1. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NEVER RECEI VED THE ENQUIRY NOTICES, DATED 12.03,2009 AND 26.06.2009, ISSUED BY THE LD. AO BEFORE THE OPENING OF HER CASE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAD NOT RECEIV ED NOTICE DATED 30.03.2010, ISSUED BY THE LD. AO UNDER SECTIO N 148 OF THE ACT FOR INITIATING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U NDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. ALSO THE APPELLANT NEVER REC EIVED NOTICES, DATED 07.12.2010 AND 16.12,2010, ISSUED BY THE LD. AO DURING THE COURSE OF ABOVE SAID ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . 2. THE REASON FOR THE NON-RECEIPT OF ANY OF THE ABOV E SAID NOTICES WAS THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT MENTIONED ON T HE ABOVE SAID NOTICES IS JUST 'RANI JHANSI ROAD, LUDHIANA'. ALL THE ABOVE SAID NOTICES ARE PLACED AT PAGES 4 TO 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREAS THE ACTUAL ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT WAS B- IX- 718, GOKUL ROAD, LUDHIANA AND B-19-549/A, COLLEGE ROAD, CIVIL LINES, LUDHIANA. 3. EVEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT DUE TO THE REASON THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT MENTIONED ON THE ABOVE SAID ORDER IS JUST 'RANI JHANSI ROAD, LUDHIANA'. 4. ACTUALLY THE APPELLANT RECEIVED A NOTICE DATED 20.0 5.2011 FROM THE LD. AO INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO.9 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ADDRESS MENTIONED ON THIS NOTICE IS CORRECT, AGAINST WHICH THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL APPE ARED ON 06.06.2011 THE COPY OF LETTER FILED BY THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL ON 06.06,2011 IS ENCLOSED AT PAGE NO. 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 5. ANOTHER NOTICE INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS DATE D 30.05.2011 WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT WITH CORRECT ADDRESS AND IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 6. THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL FILED HIS REPLY DATED 08.06.20 11 WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 7. AS PER THE LETTERS, DATED 06.06.2011 AND 08.06.2011, FILED BY THE APPELLANT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO NOTICE OR ASSESSMENT ORDER OR DEMAND NOTICE OR PENALTY NOTICE HAD EVER BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE DE POSITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.100 FOR THE INSPECTION OF THE ASSES SMENT FILE 7 OF THE APPELLANT. THE COPY OF THE ABOVE CHALLAN IS PLACED AT PAGE NO, 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE CHALLAN, THE APPELLANT RECEIVED THE ABOVE SAID NOTIC ES PLACED AT PAGES NO. 4 TO 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 8. EVEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S . 148 OF THE ACT HAD BEEN ISSUED BY THE THEN ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON 08.06.2011, AS STAMPED AND SIGNED BY THE THEN ASSESS ING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD BE EN ISSUED BY THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT ON 08.06.2011. 9. THEREAFTER, ON 14.06.2011, THE APPELLANT FILED A N APPEAL FEE OF RS. 1,000/- TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ABOVE S AID ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), LUDHIANA. T HE COPY OF ABOVE SAID CHALLAN IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 10. FINALLY, THE APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY WAS FILED ON 15.06.2011 AND THE COPY OF FORM OF ACKNOWLED GMENT DATED 15.06.2011 WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE SAID APPEA L FILING IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 11. AGAIN, THE APPELLANT FILED A LETTER DATED 17.06.2011 BEFORE THE LD. AO MENTIONING THE ABOVE FACTS AND REQUESTED F OR THE STAY OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE SAME IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 8.2. REFERRING TO THE SAME, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE NOTICES FOR THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND EVEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SENT AT THE ADDRESS RANI JHANSI ROAD, LUDHIANA , WHEREAS THE ACTUAL ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS B-IX- 718, GOKUL ROAD, LUDHIANA AND B-19-549/A, COLLEGE R OAD CIVIL LINES, LUDHIANA AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OU T THAT THE NOTICE INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS ISSUED AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS AND ON RECEIVING THE SAID NOTICES, THE ASSE SSEE FILED LETTERS STATING THAT IT HAD NEITHER RECEIVED ANY AS SESSMENT ORDER OR DEMAND NOTICE AND ALSO DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF RS .100/- FOR INSPECTION OF THE ASSESSMENT FILE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS DATED 8.6.20 11, ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS STAMPED AND SIG NED BY THE THEN A.O. AND IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, ON 14.6.2011, APPEAL WAS 8 FILED TO THE CIT(A). COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS REFERR ED TO BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS THE APPEAL FI LED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS DELAYED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE FU RTHER STATED THAT NO OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) WHO HAD PASSED THE ORDER REFUSING TO ADMIT THE ASSESSEES A PPEAL. AT THIS JUNCTURE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE WAS ASKED AT BAR WHETHER ANY APPLICATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) EXPLAIN ING HE DELAY AND SEEKING CONDONATION OF THE SAME, TO WHICH, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REPLIED IN THE NEGATIVE. THE LD. COUNS EL FOR ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDER A FTER FIVE YEARS OF FILING OF THE APPEAL. DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO T HIS FACT FROM THE BODY OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHICH CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF DATE OF FILING OF THE APPEAL ON 15.6.2011 AND DATE OF TH E ORDER ON 31.8.2016, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) TOOK FIVE YEARS TO REFUSE TO ADMIT THE APPEAL AND DID NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY IN THIS PERIOD TO EVEN AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARIN G TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM. 9. THE LD. DR WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE AS ABOVE. 10. CONSIDERING FIRST THE AVERMENTS MADE BEFORE US RELATING TO THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE US, WE FIND TH AT THE DELAY COULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND WAS FOR NO FAULT OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE LAXITY ON THE PA RT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE WHO HAS ADMITTED TO THE SAME O N OATH. THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND, HAS JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR THE DELAY. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT BY FILING OF APPEAL LATE NO BENEF IT IS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE, NOR CAN IT BE SAID THAT IF THE DELAY IS CONDONED ANY 9 LOSS OR HANDICAP IS VISITED UPON THE REVENUE. IT CAN ALSO NOT BE SAID THAT BY LATE FILING OF THE APPEAL BY THE ASSES SEE A VESTED RIGHT STOOD CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE WHICH STOOD UPSET IF THE DELAY IS CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY, BEING SATISFIED BY THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WE HOLD THAT THE DELAY OF 106 DAYS HAS OCCURRED IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE AFORESAID CASE FOR THE REASON BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DELAY IS ACCORDINGLY, CONDONED. 11. MOREOVER,IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE UNCONTROVERTED FA CTS, THAT THE NOTICES FOR HEARING IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A ND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SENT AT THE WRONG ADDRESS OF T HE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED FOR INITIATING PENALTY WAS SENT AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND MERIT IN T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT BECAME AWARE ONLY ON RECEIVING PENALTY NOTICES, THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD BEEN FRAMED O N HIM. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER THE ASS ESSEE REQUESTED THE AO TO FURNISH A COPY OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER AND THEREAFTER FILED APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) WITHIN THE ST IPULATED TIME OF RECEIVING THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE SAME ,WE AGREE T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN F ILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). ALSO, WE FIND, THAT THE LD.CIT(A ) HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE , WITHOUT GIVING A NY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE DELA Y IN FILING OF THE APPEAL, AND THIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE HIMSELF T OOK FIVE YEARS TO PASS THE ORDER. THIS IS NOTHING BUT A GLARING EXAMP LE OF VIOLATION OF ALL PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WE, THEREFORE , SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN REFUSING TO ADMIT THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, HAVING RESTORED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A),WE HEREBY DIRECT HIM TO ADJUDICATE THE 10 ENTIRE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY O F HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, AND THEREAFTER PASS AN ORDER IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW. 12. IN EFFECT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.326/CHD/2018: 13. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENG ED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE ADDI TION CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). SINCE WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, TO THE LD.CIT(A), THE APPEA L FILED IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS ALSO RESTORED BACK TO BE ADJ UDICATED ALONGWITH THE QUANTUM APPEAL. 14. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEEE IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. IN EFFECT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- # $' % & (SANJAY GARG ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER '( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *# /DATED: 17 TH DECEMBER, 2018 * ' * &) *+,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. - $ / CIT 4. - $ ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , #0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /35' / GUARD FILE &) $ / BY ORDER, 6 ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR