Jaswinder Singh Grewal, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 444/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6575 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KULTEJ SINGH BAINSSR
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY JAINCA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 444/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI JASWINDER SINGH GREWAL, VS. THE ITO, HOUSE NO. 3266, SECTOR 35-D, WARD 3(4), CHANDIGARH . CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. ADZPG 7092A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AJAY JAIN,CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KULTEJ SINGH BAINS,SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2016 OF LD. CIT (APPE ALS)-2 AMRITSAR CAMP AT CHANDIGARH PERTAINING TO 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YE AR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS INCLUDING SUSTAINING OF THE ADDITION ON MERITS. HOWE VER, SINCE THE PARTIES WERE HEARD ONLY IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 1, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS WRONGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF PRESENTATION WITHO UT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CA MANIK GOYAL A TTENDED THE PROCEEDING ON 16-11-2016 & APPELLANT HAD NOT RECEIVED FETTER DATE D 09-12-2016 . 2. THAT THE ID COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED BY NOT DECIDING THE CASE ON MERIT & ALSO ERRED BY NOT DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS700700/- UNDER SECTION 69 OF INCOME TAX MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUB MITTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED FOR WANT OF RE PRESENTATION. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THAT THE NOTICE DATED 09.12.2016 SAID TO HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED. POINTING TO THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS SCF 446, M OTOR MARKET, MANI MAJRA, CHANDIGARH I.E. SHOP-CUM-FLAT. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO SEF- 446, MOTOR MARKET, MANIMAJRA, CHANDIGARH. ACCORDINGLY, TH ERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME CONFUSION IN THE ADDRESS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES , IT WAS HIS LIMITED PRAYER THAT THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD MAY BE GRAN TED AND NOTICE MAY BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO. 10 IN THE RE VISED MEMO OF ITA/444/CHD/2017 A.Y 2009-10 PAGE 2 OF 2 APPEAL FILED. THE LD. SR.DR MR. KULTEJ SINGH BAINS CONSIDERING THE RECOR D HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE SAID PRAYER. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY WHEREIN THE CASE WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE IN COST/PURCHASE PRICE OF SCF 444, MOTOR MARKET, MANI MAJRA WAS HELD TO HA VE BEEN ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT RESULTED IN AN ADDITION OF RS. 7,07,000/-. TH E SAID ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH WHEREIN ADMITT EDLY THE NOTICE DATED 09.12.2016 STATED TO HAVE BEEN SENT RETURNED UN SERVED WITH THE REMARK LEFT. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPR ESENTED. ACCEPTING THE ORAL UNDERTAKING OF THE LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSEE SH ALL PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND WOULD NOT ABUSE THE TRUST, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WHILE SO DIRECTING, IT IS HOPED THAT TH E OPPORTUNITY SO PROVIDED, IT IS HOPED, IS NOT ABUSED BY THE ASSESSEE AS IN THE EVENTUALITY OF ABUSE OF THE SAME, THE LD. CIT(A) WOULD BE AT LIBERTY PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THUS, IT IS HOPE D THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN INTEREST MAKES FULL AND PROPER COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH NOV.,2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.