Gurdev Chand, Ambala Cantt. V. ITO, W-1, Ambala

ITA 501/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8830 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND SUDERSHAN JCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: MADAN LAL KOHLI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 147

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCHES, SMC CHANDIGARH .., ! BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.501/CHD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 GURDEV CHAND #9, POOJA VIHAR AMBALA CANTT. HARYANA THE ITO W-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN AMBALA, HARYANA PAN NO: AJUPC9980E APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MADAN LAL KOHLI, ADVOCATE #!' REVENUE BY : SHRI ARVIND SUDERSHAN, JCIT $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 09/01/2020 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/01/2020 '#/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 21/01/2019 OF LD. CIT(A)-3, LUDHIANA. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L: 1. THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE CIT(APPEALS), LUD HIANA, WERE NEVER SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT, AS ENUMERATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ALSO NO INTIMATION OF THE TRANSFER OF THE CASE FROM CIT(APPEALS) PANCHKULA TO CIT(APPEALS) LUDHIANA, HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT IF A NOTICE FOR 26.02.2018 WAS SERVED, AGAI NST WHICH WRITTEN REPLY WAS FILLED ON 19/03/2018, THEN HOW THE REMAINING NOTICES COULD NOT BE SERVED, CREATES DOUBT ON THE SPIRIT BEHIND SERVING THE VALID NOTICE S. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY PREFERRED AN APPE AL AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ITO WARD NO. 3, AMBALA, BEFORE CIT(AP PEALS), PANCHKULA, VIDE APPEAL NO. 49/AMB/15-16, WHICH IS STILL PENDING WIT H HIM. 4. THAT THE ORIGINAL APPEAL IS STILL PENDING WITH C IT (APPEALS) PANCHKULA, AS APPLICATION FROM ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES U/S 295(2)(MM ), IS REMANDED TO THE ITO WARD NO. 2, AMBALA, WHO YET TO HAVE SUBMIT THE REMA ND REPORT, WHERE AS THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLIED ALL THE NOTICES SERVED BY TH E THEN ITO FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 2 3. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L RELATES TO THE EX- PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT SERVIC E OF THE NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN CLAIMED VIDE GROUND NO.4 THAT THE ORIGINAL APPEAL WAS STILL PENDING WITH THE LD. CIT(A), PANCHKULA. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED BY INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIO N 147 R.W.S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS A CT) ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE SAVING BANK ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,04,000/- IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, AMBALA. THE A.O. FRAMED THE EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 10,04,000/- AND ALS O INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SIN CE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O. THE PENALTY ORDER WAS ALSO PASSED EX-PARTE AND THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AMOUNTIN G TO RS. 2,81,846/- WAS LEVIED. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER EX-PARTE BY OBSERVING THAT THE N OTICES WERE SENT THROUGH SPEED POST BUT NOBODY APPEARED IN RESPONSE TO THOSE NOTIC ES. LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO N OTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. BY PASSING THE EX-PARTE ORDER. 8. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR SUPPORTED TH E IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE NOTICE FOR HEARING ALTHOUGH C LAIMED TO BE SENT BY SPEED POST WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED, UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM, AUDI ALTERAM PERTAM . 3 10. I THEREFORE KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF NA TURAL JUSTICE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PRO VIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- .., ( N.K. SAINI) ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 09/01/2020 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE