Vijay Kumar Mittal, Parwanoo V. ITO, Ward, Parwanoo

ITA 383/CHANDI/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5139 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

आयकरअपील यअ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ,च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.383/CHD/2023 नधा रणवष / Assessment Year :2010-11 Vijay Kumar Mittal, Plot No. 44,Sector 2, Parwanoo-173220 Vs. बनाम TheITO, Ward, Parwanoo थायीलेखासं./PAN No:AKHPM3455E अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent ( HYBRID HEARING ) नधा रतीक ओरसे/Assessee by : Sh. Surinder Babbar, CA राज वक ओरसे/ Revenue by : Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr.DR ( through Virtual ) स ु नवाईक तार#ख/Date of Hearing : 22.11.2023 उदघोषणाक तार#ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2023 आदेश/Order Per A.D. Jain, Vice President: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 21.04.2023, for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. At the outset, it has been submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee thatthe order passed by the ITO, Parwanoo is without jurisdiction; that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 383-Chd-2023– Vijay Kumar Mittal, Parwanoo 2 1961 is bad in law as the same was not served upon the Assessee or any authorized person of the Assessee; that the addition made by the ITO, Parwanoo and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), without giving proper opportunity to the Assessee is bad in law which is labile to the quashed; and that the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of sum of all the credit entries of State Bank of Patiala amounting to Rs. 41,52,630/-, to the income of the Assessee. The ld. Counsel for the Assessee has contended that though the notice was issued through portal but the Assessee did not notice it till 15.4.2023, whereas the case was fixed for 13.4.2023. On observing the aforesaid notice, the Assessee filed an adjournment request on 15.4.2023 itself but the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order on 21.4.2023 by confirming the additions made by the A.O.and that as such the action of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer is not justified as the Assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for non-appearance before ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the Assessee therefore, has requested that the matter be -aside to the Assessing Officer so that the Assessee could explain the credit nerites in thebank account. It has further been submitted that the impugned order of the Assessing Officer,and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), by passing an ex-parte order is totally unfair, arbitrary and unjustified. It is submitted that the Assessee has a fair case on merits and, therefore, prayed that keeping in view the principles of natural justice, 383-Chd-2023– Vijay Kumar Mittal, Parwanoo 3 the Assessee may be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing of the appeal before the Assessing Officer and the appeal may be directed to be decided de novo on merits. 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 4. Heard. We have gone through the order of theauthorities below and find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the Assesseeex-parte by merely upholding the order of the Assessing Officer,without considering the material available on record, and also without going into the merits of the case. As such, an opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the Assessee to represent his case fully before the A.O. Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. VeluPalandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.)] and incumbent on the authority to decide an appeal on merit. The ld. D.R., though, has placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below, but has no objection if the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. 5. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer,to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the Assessing Officer.All 383-Chd-2023– Vijay Kumar Mittal, Parwanoo 4 pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, for statistical purposes, theappeal is treated as allowed. Order pronounced on 29.11.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( A.D. JAIN ) Accountant Member Vice President Dated : 29.11.2023 “आर.के.” आदेशक त)ल*पअ+े*षत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent 3. आयकरआय ु 0त/ CIT 4. *वभागीय त न4ध, आयकरअपील#यआ4धकरण, च6डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar