Sh. Sudhir Kapila, Mandi Gobindgarh V. ITO, Mandi Gobindgarh

ITA 508/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5402 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: A BENCH: CHA NDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA, AM AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWL A, JM ITA NO. 508/CHANDI/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI SUDHIR KAPILA V. I.T.O. WARD -1 PROP. M/S SAKODA SPONGE IRON & STEEL CO. MANDI G OBINDGARH VILLAGE JASSRAM, MANDI GOBINDGARH PAN: ANGPK 1558 G APPELLANT BY: SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N.K. SAINI ORDER D K SRIVASTAVA : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 12.1.2011, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND HOLDING ALL ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. 2 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT AFFORDING P ROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO APPEAR AND HEAR THE CASE PROPERLY. 3 THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE SAID GROUNDS OF A PPEAL, EVEN ON MERITS WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL, THE LD. CIT( A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED PROPERLY OUT DETAILED SUBMISSIONS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF PREVIOUS HEARING BEFORE HIM AND SAME WAS ALSO MENTIONED BY HIM IN HI S ORDER. 4 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL, NEITHER DISCUSSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT AND NOR DISCUSSED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS FILED BY US. BUT SIMPLY HE HAS MENTION ED THAT I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE AO IN HIS REM AND REPORT (WITHOUT DISCUSSION IN HIS ORDER) AND THE APPEAL OF THE APPE LLANT IS DECIDED ON THE MERITS OF EACH GROUND (THOUGH NO SUCH DISCUSSION MA DE IN THE ORDER). 5 THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOS ED OFF. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE, PROPRIETOR OF M/S SAKODA SPONGE IRON & STEEL CO., FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 15.11.2007 RETURNING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,67,620/-. THE RETURN WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. AFTER SCRUTINY, THE AO ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 11,31,410/- AFTER MAKING DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,6 3,793/-. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVE R DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO BE PRESENT ON NEXT DATE OF HEARING, I.E., ON 11.1.2011. NO ONE ATTENDED ON THE SAID DATE NOR ANY ITA NO. 508/CHANDI/2011 SUDHIR KAPILA, V. I.T.O. 2 2 ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN SOUGHT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE THE APPEAL IS DECIDED TAKING INTO C ONSIDERATION THE UNSIGNED SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED ON 29.12.2 010 AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTEN TIONS OF THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT AND THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS DE CIDED ON THE MERITS OF EACH GROUND AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED DUE TO LACK OF PROPER PLEADINGS. 4. IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AN D THAT A COPY OF HIS SUBMISSIONS WAS SENT BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMEN TS. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NEITHER CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WITH THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO TO HIM N OR DEALT WITH HIS SUBMISSIONS IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER AND THEREFORE THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER RESTORED TO HIS FILE FO R A FRESH DECISION IN CONFORMITY WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A COPY OF THE AOS REMAND REP ORT TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN REPLY, THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY CON SIDERED THEIR SUBMISSIONS. WE HAVE PERUSED THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE L D. CIT(A). THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE SAID ORDER THAT THE REMAND REPORT OBTAINED BY HIM FROM THE AO WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. BESIDES, THE LD. CI T(A) HAS NOT DEALT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E BEFORE HIM, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THOUGH HE HAS REPRODUCED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTE R, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO H IS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION IN CONFORMITY WITH LAW. REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING SHALL BE GIVEN TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 7. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 24 JUNE 2011 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D K SRIVASTAVA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER CHANDIGARH: THE 24 JUNE 2011 SURESH COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT, SUDHIR KAPILA, MANDI GOBINDGARH 2. THE RESPONDENT, I.T.O. WARD -1, MANDI GOBINDGARH 3. THE CIT(A), PATIALA 4. THE LD. CIT, PATIALA 5. THE D.R, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, CHANDIGARH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH