Sh. Vijay Pal Singh, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 510/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 51021514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: TEJ MOHAN SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 509 TO 511/CHD/2015 A.Y.: 2005-06 TO 2007-08 SHRI VIJAY PAL SINGH, VS THE DCIT, HOUSE NO. 1494, CIRCLE 5(1), SECTOR 40-B, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ACNPS8168C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SING H RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 19.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.11.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM ALL THE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-II CHANDIGARH DATED 26.02.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07 AN D 2007-08. 2. IN ALL THE APPEALS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ON GROUND NO. 1, ASSESSEE CHALL ENGED THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED EX-PARTE BY LD. CIT(APPE ALS) WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 2 3. BRIEFLY IT IS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS THAT APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 16.04.2014 ON WHICH DATE, THE C ASE WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF COUNSEL FOR ASSESSE E TO 12.05.2014 BUT NOBODY ATTENDED ON THIS DATE OF HEAR ING. THEREAFTER, THE APPEALS WERE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING O N 09.02.2015 WHICH WAS ADJOURNED TO 11.02.2015 AND TH EN TO 23.02.2015 ON THE REQUEST OF COUNSEL FOR ASSESSE E. IN ONE OF THE ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE L D. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO NOTED THAT THESE APPEALS WERE FUR THER ADJOURNED TO 26.02.2015 ON THE REQUEST OF COUNSEL F OR ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER IN DAK IN HIS OFFICE ON 25.02.2015 STATING THEREI N THAT SOME DOCUMENTS WERE REQUIRED AND REPLY HAD NOT BEEN PREPARED SO REQUESTED FOR 15 DAYS TIME WHICH WAS N OT GRANTED BECAUSE IN OPINION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), SUFFICIENT TIME FOR HEARING THE CASE HAS ALREADY BE EN GIVEN. ACCORDINGLY, APPEALS WERE DECIDED EX-PARTE AND ALL APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED ON MERIT S. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT INITIALLY AFTER FIXATION OF THE APPEALS, THE APPEAL S WERE TAKEN UP ON 09.02.2015 AND WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 15 DAYS, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DECIDED EX-PA RTE, THEREFORE, NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD HAV E BEEN GIVEN. HE HAS FILED AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAJ KUM AR CHAUDHRY, ADVOCATE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH HE HAS EXPLAINED THAT ON 09.02.2015, APPEALS WERE ADJOURNE D TO 11.02.2015. ON 11.02.2015, COUNSEL WAS CHANGED AND 3 ON THE REQUEST OF SHRI NEERAJ ARORA, C.A., APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED TO 23.02.2015 ON WHICH DATE SHRI NEERAJ ARORA, C.A. REFUSED TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS. THE REFORE, REQUEST WAS MADE THROUGH E-MAIL. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(APPEALS) ADJOURNED THE APPEALS TO 26.02.2015. ON 25.02.2015, HE PERSONALLY WENT TO THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT FOR 15 DAYS BECAUSE SUBMISSIONS COULD NOT BE PREPARED WITHIN A SHORT PE RIOD. HOWEVER, HIS REQUEST WAS REFUSED AND APPLICATION WA S NOT ENTERTAINED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTED TO FILE THE APPLICATION ON DAK COUNTER. ACCORDINGLY, APPLICA TION WAS FILED AT THE DAK COUNTER ON 25.02.2015. THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ONE MORE CHANCE MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ARGUIN G THE APPEALS ON MERITS. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIE D UPON IMPUGNED ORDERS. 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FA CTS STATED ABOVE AND AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUDH RY, ADVOCATE FOR ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSE SSEE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THE APPEALS ON MERIT BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). INITIALLY FIXING THE APPE ALS IN APRIL, 2014, APPEALS WERE TAKEN UP ON 09.02.2015. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 26.02.2015 I.E. WITHIN A S PAN OF 17 DAYS. IN BETWEEN, THE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED ONLY FOR SHORT DATES AND WHEN PRIOR TO THE DATE OF HEARI NG ON 25.02.2015, COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST FOR 4 ADJOURNMENT FOR 15 DAYS, IT WAS REFUSED TO THE ASSE SSEE. THE AFFIDAVIT OF COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUPPORT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO REASONABLE SUFF ICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE APPEALS COULD NOT BE TAKEN UP F OR ABOUT 10 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF INITIALLY FIXING T HE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT OF HEARING SUBSEQUENTLY BY DECIDING THE APPEALS WIT HIN 17 DAYS. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAVE TH US, BEEN PASSED IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JU STICE. WE, INSTEAD OF DECIDING THE APPEALS ON MERIT, SET A SIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS REASON AND RESTORE ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIS FILE WITH DI RECTION TO RE-DECIDE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS BY G IVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL COOPERATE WITH THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) FOR FINALLY DECIDING THE APPEALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) (BHAVNESH SAI NI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATED: 20 TH NOV.,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, PITAT/CHD