Sh Tejinder Singh Sahai, Kapurthala V. The Income Tax Officer, Kapurthala

ITA 394/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9515 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VEDPAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH.T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.394(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1993-94 SH. TEJINDER SINGH SAHAI PROP. M/S SAHAI ENTERPRISES, GOLDEN AVENUE, KANGLI RAOD, KAPURTHALA. PAN:AIZPS1257N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAPURTHALA -II KAPURTHALA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. J.S. BHASIN, CA. RESPONDENT BY: SH. VEDPAL SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING: 29/11/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02/12/2016 ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DT.22.04.2016 FOR ASST. YEAR: 1993-94. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE SUSTAINING TH E LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.73,030/- WHICH IS ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.394/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 1993-94 2 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E WAS NOT PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND LD. CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS OF THE CASE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THIS GRIEVANCE AS FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL. 4. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY PLACED HI S RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD FIXED THE APPEALS FOR HEARING ON 02.03.2016 & 11.04.2016 AND THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 22.04.2016. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS OFFERED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING AND HAD NOT APPEARED AND THEREFORE, ASSESSEE HAD NOTHING TO SAY WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF PENALTY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS, HE HAS DISMISSED THE AP PEAL OF ASSESSEE. WE, HOWEVER, FEEL THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DECID ED THE ISSUE KEEPING IN VIEW THE MERITS AND SHOULD HAVE ALSO DECIDED THE IS SUE AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. THE RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE PRESENT CASE, THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT TH IS ISSUE BACK TO THE OFFICE OF LD. CIT(A), WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE CASE AF TER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME TO GET HIS APPEAL DISPOSE D OFF. ITA NO.394/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 1993-94 3 6. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE WILL BE PROVIDED S UFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/12/2016 . SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 02/12/2016 /PK/PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER