Mr. Puneet Nanda, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 4/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68399 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 80C; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 04/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 SHRI PUNEET NANDA, VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, HOUSE NO. 2208, WARD 1(4), SECTOR 15-D, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. ABWPN-0521E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR DATE OF HEARING : 13.08.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.08.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DATED 01.10.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT). 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1 . THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE WORTHY CIT(A) IN APPEAL NO. 316/10-11 DATED 01. 12.2010 HAS ERRED IN PASSING THAT ORDER IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT ON FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IN-LIMINE BY ERRONEOUSLY HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE ALLOWED CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL U/S 249(3) OF THE ACT EVEN WHEN THE APPELLAN T WAS NOT SERVED THE NOTICE U/S 143(2), NOTICE U/S 156 AND OR DER U/S 144 IN TIME. THE SAME WAS RECEIVED ONLY ON 30.11.2010 AND APPEAL WAS FILED WITHIN ONE DAY ON 01.12.2010. 2 3. THAT ON FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IS MISSING THE APPEAL O F THE APPELLANT IN-LIMINE BY NOT ALLOWING THE SPECIFIC GR OUND TOWARDS CONDONATION OF DELAY, IF ANY, IN FILING THE APPEAL. 4. THAT ON FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, LD. AO HAS ERRED IN INITIATION OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSME NT AND THEN COMPLETING THE SAME EVEN WHEN HE DID NOT AT ALL HAV E JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 5. THAT ON FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY LD. AO IS BAD IN LAW SINCE THE STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS NEVER SERVED ON THE APPELLANT. 6. THAT ON FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY LD. AO IS BAD SINCE A LL THE ALLEGED NOTICES INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVE BEEN ALLEGED TO BE SERVED THROUGH AFFIXTURE MODE OF SERV ICE ONLY AND NO OTHER MODE WAS USED. 7. THAT ON FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF LOSS O F RS. 3,03,850/- UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH WAS ONLY DUE TO THE FACT OF INTEREST HAVING BEEN PAID TO BANKS AND THE LD. A.O. DID NOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESS ION. 8. THAT ON FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 1,00,000/- U/S 80C BEING REPAYMENT OF HOUSING LOAN EVEN WHEN T HE SAME IS CLEARLY ALLOWABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT A ND THE LD. A.O. DID NOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESS ION. 9. THAT ON FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 9,650/- AS I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES EVEN WHEN NO INCOME OF SUCH TYPE WAS DECLAR ED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE LD. A.O. DID NOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION. 3. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) WHEREIN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED IN-LIMINE AND THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL L ATE WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED EX-PARTE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 44 OF THE ACT. 4. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT INIT IALLY HE WAS RESIDING AT CHANDIGARH AND HAD OBTAINED THE PAN NUM BER AT HIS ADDRESS IN CHANDIGARH. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD MOVED TO DELHI AND HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON AT THE DELHI ADDRESS IN DELHI. HOWEVER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E WAS SELECTED FOR 3 SCRUTINY BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4) CHAND IGARH, WHO AS PER THE ASSESSEE HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THOU GH SEVERAL NOTICES OF HEARING WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT ALL THE NOT ICES OF HEARING WERE ISSUED AT CHANDIGARH ADDRESS, WHICH WAS NOT IN THE OCCUPATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POIN TED OUT THAT NO NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO DELHI ADDRESS WHICH WAS MENT IONED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE PLACING RELIANCE ON T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO COOPERATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ABOVESAID ORDERS WERE PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN RESPECT OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEA LS), THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AT THE DELHI ADDRESS AND AFTER RECEIVI NG THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER, THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) , WHICH WAS DISMISSED IN-LIMINE BY THE CIT(APPEALS). 7. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND AFTER PERUSING THE RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EN DS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IN CASE IF THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL DECIDE THE ASSESSABILITY OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ISS UE THE NOTICES OF HEARING TO THE KNOWN ADDRESS OF ASSESSEE AT DELHI, WHICH IS ALSO AVAILABLE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADV ISED, MAY TAKE THE ISSUE OF TRANSFER OF HIS RECORD FROM CHANDIGARH TO DELHI AND MAY TAKE SUCH SUITABLE MEASURES AS ARE DEEMED FIT IN THE MAT TER. IN THE ENTIRETY OF 4 THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE THEREFO RE, REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME DENOVO AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE, THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. WE ARE NOT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF DISMI SSAL OF APPEAL BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IN-LIMINE IN VIEW OF OUR SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 20 TH AUGUST,2013 POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH