Smt. Surjeet Kaur, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 490/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 49021514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 490/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. SURJEET KAUR, VS THE ITO, L/H OF SHRI JUGRAJ SINGH, WARD 4(4), H.NO. 423, SECTOR 35-A, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ALHPS6273K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGA RWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 26.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CHANDIGARH DATED 12.09.20 13 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) RECORDED IN THE APPELLATE O RDER THAT THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF COUNS EL FOR ASSESSEE AND LATER ON, COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER INTIMATING THAT HE MAY BE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW HIS P OWER OF ATTORNEY. THEREAFTER, NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO ASSESSEE FOR 02.11.2012 AND FURTHER ON 11.09.2013 B UT NOBODY ATTENDED BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, APPEAL WAS DECIDED EX-PARTE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PAR TLY ALLOWED. 2 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT EARLIER COUNSEL WITHDREW FROM THE CASE WITHOUT INTIMATING TO ASSESSEE AND THAT NO NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED UPON ASSESSEE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTIC E, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON MERITS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ASSESS EE TO ARGUE THE APPEAL ON MERITS BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEAL S). IN THIS CASE, THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE WITHDREW HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EARLIER COUNSEL HAS NOT INTIMATED THE ASSESSEE ABOUT WITHDRAWING THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. FURTHER, TWO NOT ICES WERE ISSUED BUT ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE, THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED UPON ASSESS EE. THE DENIAL OF THE ASSESSEE COUPLED WITH THE EXPLANA TION THAT EARLIER COUNSEL HAS NOT INTIMATED THE ASSESSEE ABOUT WITHDRAWAL OF HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, WOULD CL EAR INDICATE THAT ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM APPEARING BEFORE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) ON THE DATE OF HEARING WHICH RESULTED INTO EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). IT, THEREFOR E, 3 APPEARS THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD H AVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AN D RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF L D. CIT(APPEALS), CHANDIGARH WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECID E THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS BY GIVING REASONAB LE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND NOT TO SEEK UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMEN T IN THE MATTER. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27 TH NOV., 2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD