Neena Manmohan Aggarwal, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 3444/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5355 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Assessment record

Judgement Text

SMC-ITA NO. 3444/AHD/2016 NEENA MANMOHAN AGGARWAL VS. ITO AY : 2012-13 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [ BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ITA NO. 3444/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 NEENA MANMOHAN AGGARWAL ............APPELLA NT 22, P B PARIKH TOWER, OPP. DIWAN BALLUBHAI SCHOOL, KANKARIA, AHMEDABAD 380022 [PAN : ADAPA 5553 D] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER .......................RESPONDENT WARD 5(3)(4), AHMEDABAD APPEARANCES BY: TEJ SHAH, FOR THE APPELLANT JAYA CHAUDHARY, FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 01.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 08.10.2018 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 18 TH JULY 2016 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), AHMEDABAD-5, CONFI RMING PENALTY OF RS.3,08,603/- IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2012-13. 2. WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS AN EX-PARTE ORDER. WHEN THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT WAS ASKED AS TO WHY THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE CIT(A), SHE SUBMITTED THAT SHE VACATE D AND SOLD THE OFFICE PLACE, WHICH WAS REGISTERED IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, I.E . 17, HIRABHAI MARKET, D B ROAD, KANKARIA, AHMEDABAD; AND, THEREFORE, SHE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE NOTICES. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT TWO NOTICES WHICH WERE SAID TO HAVE BEEN SENT BY REGISTERED POST WERE NEVER RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE -APPELLANT AND THE THIRD NOTICE, WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED THROUG H NOTICE SERVER ON 22.06.2016 WAS REFUSED BY THE NEW OCCUPIER OF THE PLACE. IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTIONS OF NON-COMPLIANCE, AND, THAT IF S HE HAD RECEIVED ANY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), SHE WOULD HAV E DEFINITELY COMPLIED WITH THE SAME. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, S UBMITS THAT, GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY, ASSESSEE WOULD SCRUPULOUSLY COMPLY WIT H ALL THE NOTICES AND REQUISITIONS OF THE CIT(A) AND ENSURE EXPEDITIOUS D ISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, DID NOT OPPOSE THE MATTER BEING REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ADJU DICATION DE NOVO. SMC-ITA NO. 3444/AHD/2016 NEENA MANMOHAN AGGARWAL VS. ITO AY : 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 4. I HAVE NOTICED THAT THE THREE HEARING NOTICES WE RE ISSUED BY THE CIT(A) WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF 20 DAYS. THE FIRST NOTICE WA S ISSUED ON 02.06.2016 WHICH WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REM ARK LEFT; THEN IT WAS FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER NOTICE ON 14.06.2016 WHICH MET THE SAME FATE. THEREAFTER, THE CIT(A) ISSUED YET ANOTHER NOTICE ON 22.06.2016 WHICH IS SA ID TO HAVE BEEN REFUSED BY THE PERSON NOW OCCUPYING THE PREMISES. I HAVE ALSO NOT ICED THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW ASSURED THE TRIBUNAL THAT, GIVEN YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), HE WILL ENSURE PR OPER COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICES AND REQUISITIONS BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALSO ENSURE EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN T HESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE RIGHT COURSE OF ACTION WILL BE TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION DE-NOVO , AFTER GIVING YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. AS THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE LEA RNED CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION DE- NOVO , I SEE NO NEED TO DEAL WITH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERITS. THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS WHOLLY ACADEMIC AND INFRUCTUOUS AS ON NOW. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 8 TH OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 8 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018 **BT COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: ....5.10.2018...... 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: ... 5.10.2018... 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . P.S./P.S.: 8.10.2018.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: 8.10.18 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : .. 8.10.2018. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK : . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER : . 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: ......