Sh. Suresh Kumar, Yamunanagar V. ITO, Yamunanagar

ITA 34/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5147 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES(SMC), CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 34/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SH. SURESH KUMAR VS. THE ITO S/O SH. HAKAM CHAND WARD-4 H.NO. 177-R, MODEL TOWN YAMUNA NAGAR DISTT. YAMUNA NAGAR PAN NO. ALIPK0061G & ITA NO. 146/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SH. DIDAR SINGH VS. THE ITO S/O SH. NIKKA SINGH WARD-1 H.NO. 55, CHOPRA GARDEN YAMUNA NAGAR DISTT. YAMUNA NAGAR PAN NO. AQDPS0208B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS BY : MS. CHANDERKANTA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 30/05/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/06/2017 ORDER BOTH THE ABOVE APPEALS FILED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSES SES ARE ON IDENTICAL ISSUE. SAME ARE DISPOSED OF AS UNDER: 2. ITA 34/CHD/2017 BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), PANCHKULA DT. 17/11/2016 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007-08. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. BOTH THE PARTIES MAINL Y ARGUED IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURESH KUMAR (IN ITA NO. 34/CHD/2017) THE APPEAL IS DECIDED AS UNDER. 3.1 IN THIS CASE THE AO PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER UND ER SECTION 144/147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DT. 23/03/2015 ASSESSING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN A SUM OF RS. 44,41,961/-. 2 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED VARIOUS DATES OF HEARING WHEN NOTICE HAVE BEEN ISSU ED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR 28/07/2016 TO 08/11/2016 WHEN THE APPEAL WAS ADJOUR NED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND ULTIMATELY THERE WERE NO COMPLIANCE FR OM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DT. 17/11/2016. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE HAS FILED A BRIEF SYNOPSIS TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSE E AND HIS WHOLE FAMILY WAS IN STATE OF TRAUMA / SHOCK DUE TO CRIMINAL CASE RELATI NG TO DOWRY. FIR WAS REGISTERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMB ERS ON 21/06/2016, COPY FILED. HIS SON ANKIT MALIK WAS ARRESTED AND WAS BEH IND THE BAR ON 12/07/2016 AND LATER ON RELEASED ON BAIL VIDE ORDER DT. 08/08/ 2016, COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER IS FILED. ULTIMATELY AFTER SERIOUS LITIGATION BETWEEN ASSESSEES SON AND HIS DAUGHTER IN LAW THE MATTER WAS MUTUALLY SETTLED IN JANUARY 2 017, COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IS ALSO FILED. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO ABOVE REASONS THERE WERE NO COMPLIANCE BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A). HE HAS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS. 6. LD. DR ALSO SUGGESTED THAT MATTER COULD BE REMAN DED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT DURING TH E PERIOD, APPEAL FIXED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)FROM JULY 2016 TO NOVEMBER 2016, THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE FACING A CRIMINAL CASE AND EVEN DURING THE SAME PERIOD SON OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINED IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY, THEREFOR E DUE TO THESE REASONS ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT MAKING COMPLIA NCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT ONE MORE O PPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN 3 TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THE APPEAL ON MERITS BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIS FILE WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECID E THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. ITA 146/CHD/2017 BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), PANCHKULA DT. 16/11/2016 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007-08. IN THIS CASE ALSO THE AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTI ON 144/147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 21,41,500/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO H AS NOTED THE DATES OF HEARING FOR COMPLIANCE BEFORE HIM STARTING FROM 27/ 06/2016 TO 08/11/2016. ON THESE DATES EITHER THERE WAS AN ADJOURNMENT REQUEST ED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE OR ULTIMATELY THERE WERE NO COMPLIANCE. LD . CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDERED IN CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEE I.E; SHRI SURE SH KUMAR (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE IS 80 YEARS OLD AND WAS SUFFERING FROM VARIOUS AILM ENTS. HIS WIFE HAD ALREADY EXPIRED AND DAUGHTER MARRIED. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALON E THEREFORE COULD NOT MAKE COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE UNDERTAKE S THAT ASSESSEE WOULD APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FINALIZATION OF TH E APPEAL IN CASE THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). 11. LD. DR ALSO SUGGESTED THAT MATTER COULD BE REMA NDED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). 12. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, I A M SATISFIED THAT ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT MAKING COMPLIA NCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON DIFFERENT DATES OF HEARING. FURTHER THE ISSUE IS STATED TO BE IDENTICAL AS IS 4 INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURESH KUMAR (SUPRA) I N WHICH THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND MATTER IN ISSUE IS RESTORE TO HIS FILE WI TH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY GI VING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE RESULT THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DI FFERENT ASSESSES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 01/06/2017 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, THE CIT(A), THE DR