Smt. Geetika Kathuria, Dhakoli V. ITO, Panchkula

ITA 538/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5339 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D.K.SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 538/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SMT. GEETIKA KATHURIA, VS. THE ITO, WARD 2, 84, GULMOHAR AVENUE, PANCHKULA DHAKOLI PAN NO. ALMPK5274H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AJAY JAIN RESPONDENT BY: SMT.JAISHREE SHARMA ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A),, PANCHKULA DATED 11.2.2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) PANCHKULA HAS WRONGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION AND ALSO ERRED I N LAW BY NOT DECIDING THE ISSUES / GROUNDS ON MERIT A S PER FACTS ALREADY ON RECORD. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,76,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ALL ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD; WITHOUT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, AND ALSO ERR ED BY NOT ADJUDICATING THE LEGAL &FACTUAL ISSUES RAISE D IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FROM 1 TO 6. 2 3. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, WE FIND THAT ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, UNDER WHICH ADDITION OF RS. 13,76,000/- WAS MADE TO THE RETURNE D INCOME. DUE TO NON APPEARANCE ON VARIOUS DATES OF HEARING FIXED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE WITH OUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD I S THAT NO PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE WAS DONE BY THE CIT(A). FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IT TRANSPIRES THAT THOUGH TH E CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO THE GROUND OF APPEAL BUT HAS NOT ADJUDI CATED UPON THE SAME. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF T HE ACT IT IS IMPERATIVE UPON THE CIT(A) TO PASS AN ORDER IN WRIT ING DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL AND FURTHER THE CIT(A) SHALL STATE THE P OINTS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND REASON FOR THE DECISION. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) TO HAVE FA ILED TO DISCHARGE ITS DUTY IN GIVING THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION/DEC ISION ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JU STICE WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 15H DAY OF JULY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 15 TH JULY, 2011 RKK 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH