SHRI HARDIP SINGH, AMRITSAR V. INCOME TAX OFFIER WARD -3(2), AMRITSAR

ITA 424/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3404 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RADHIKA GOEL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 424/ASR./2017 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06 SHRI HARDIP SINGH, S/O SHRI KARTAR SINGH, C/O SAGGU SERVICE STATION, HIDE MARKET, AMRITSAR VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), AMRITSAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ACHPS1232K ASSESSEE BY : MS. RADHIKA GOEL, CA REVENUE BY : SMT. RATINDE R KAUR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 20 .02 .201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT : 21 .02 .201 9 ORDER PER N. S. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-1, AMRITSAR DATED 28.02.2017. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS BASED ON SURMISES AND NOT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ADDITION OF RS.3,94,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED LOANS HAVE BEEN WRONGLY MADE WITHOUT APPRECIATING MY SUBMISSIONS. 3. THE NOTICE OF DEMAND IS PRE-DATED 28-12-2012, WHEREAS ASSESSMENT ORDER IS DATED 31-12-2012. 4. ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL THAT MAY BE TAKEN AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA NO. 424/ASR ./2017 HARDIP SINGH 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. 4. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE INVOL VES A LEGAL ISSUE AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS ADJUDICATED EARLIER. THE SAID GROUND READS AS UNDER: 3. THE NOTICE OF DEMAND IS PRE-DATED 28-12-2012, WHEREAS ASSESSMENT ORDER IS DATED 31-12-2012. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE MS. RADHIKA GOEL, C.A. HAS FILED A COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED U/S 156 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE INSTANT CASE AN D POINTED OUT THAT THE SAME BEARS THE DATE AS 28.12.2012. FUR THER, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE RELEVANT ORDER OF ASSESSME NT WAS DATED 31.12.2012. 6. FURTHER, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE PLACE D AT PAGE NO. 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK, A COPY OF NOTICE DATED 26. 12.2012 WHICH SHOWS THAT THE DATE OF HEARING WAS FIXED ON 3 1.12.2012 AT 11 AM. IT WAS ARGUED THAT BEFORE THE DATE OF HEA RING ITSELF, THE DEMAND NOTICE WAS PREPARED TO GIVE EFFECT TO TH E DEMAND NOTICE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED WITHOUT ALLOWING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THUS, THE IMPU GNED ORDER BEING PASSED IN VIOLATION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATU RAL JUSTICE, THE SAME IS BAD IN LAW. 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CO NTROVERT THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE . ITA NO. 424/ASR ./2017 HARDIP SINGH 3 8. WE FIND THAT DEMAND NOTICE ITSELF WAS ISSUED ON 28.12.2012, THE HEARING FIXED ON 31.12.2012 BECAME FARCE. THUS, WE AGREE THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING W AS NOT ALLOWED AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED IN VIOLAT ION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WE, THEREFORE, SET A SIDE THE SAME AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DECISION, THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THEREFORE, NOT SEPARATE LY ADJUDICATED. THUS, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/02/2019) SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (N. S. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER DATED: 21/02/2019 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR