Smt. Anu Jethi, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 545/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9846 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 545 & 546/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2010-11 SMT. ANU JETHI, VS. THE ITO, HOUSE NO. 6486/1/2, WARD-VII(1), STREET NO. 2, NEW TARSEM NAGAR, LUDHIANA JASSIAN, HAIBOWAL, LUDHIANA PAN NO. AFBPJ3375H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 23/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/06/2016 ORDER PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M THESE ARE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), LUDHIANA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010- 11 RESPECTIVELY. 2. SINCE ISSUES ARE COMMON AND THE APPEAL WE HAVE H EARD TOGETHER, THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 3. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEAL S READS AS UNDER: THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-III, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE EX-PARTE ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICES F OR HEARING COULD NOT BE SERVED ON THE APPELLANT AND WAS RETURNED BACK WITH REMARKS THAT T HE ASSESSEE LEFT THE PRMISES, WHEREAS COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE AS SESSEE. THEREFORE, EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS)-III, LUDHIANA IS ILLEGAL, UNCALLED FOR, UNWARRANTED AND MAY BE QUASHED. ANOTHER ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEALS RELATES TO MERI TS OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS. 2 4. IN THIS CASE AO HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 4,99 ,000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND RS. 1,82,000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 -11 BEING CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WERE SAID TO BE NOT EXPLAINED. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER PROVI SION OF SECTION 44AF OF THE ACT. AO HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE ASSESSES PLEA THA T THE DEPOSIT WERE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS. 5. UPON THE ASSESSES APPEAL LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED ON 02/12/2015 AND 01/01/2016 AND BOTH THE NO TICES WERE RETURNED UNSERVED, LD. CIT HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERE STED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. ON MERITS HE AFFIRMED THE AOS ACTION. AGAI NST THIS ORDER ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION HAS BEEN MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN REJECTED AS THE MATTER CAN BE DISPOSED OF AFTER CONSIDERING THE RECORDS AND HEARING THE LD. D R. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN THIS CASE BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE NOTICES FOR HEARING BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN SERVED UPON IT. THE ASS ESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE EXPARTE ORDER BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, HOW CAN THE NOTICES FOR HEARING BE NOT RECEIVED BY HER. IN THIS REGARD I NOTE THAT NOTICES WERE ISSUED OVER A SHORT PERIOD OF TWO WEEK WHICH HAVE REMAINED UNSERVED. HENCE IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED IF THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A ) TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD. 7. I NOTE THAT ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE HAS F ILED RETURN UNDER SECTION 44AF OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE RATE OF INCOME RETURNED IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT WHICH CAN BE ARRIVED AT IF THE RATE OF INCOME IS APPLIED ON 3 BANK DEPOSITS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, HOW THE ASSE SSES PLEA THAT DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ARE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS CAN BE REJECTED H AS NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HENCE WHILE REMITT ING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) I ALSO DIRECT HIM TO PASS A SPEAKING ORD ER AS PER LAW, KEEPING IN MIND THE PURPOSE OF ENACTMENT OF SECTION 44AF. 8. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/06/2016 SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 23/06/2016 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR