Prem Singh S/o Sh. Satnam Singh, Sunam V. ITO Ward, Sangrur

ITA 554/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0320 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKET SINGLA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 250; 144

Judgement Text

, . , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH , , , BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM ./ ITA NO. 554&555/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI PREM SINGH, S/O SHRI SATNAM SINGH, VILLAGE MUNSHIWALA, TEHSIL-SUNAM. VS THE ITO, WARD SANGRUR. ./ PAN /TAN NO: BPPPS9485A / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 556/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI TEJINDER SINGH, B-III/254, NEAR SANATAN DHARAM MANDIR, NABHA GATE, SANGRUR. VS THE ITO, WARD SANGRUR. ./ PAN /TAN NO: BWSPS5602M / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANKET SINGLA, ADVOCATE / REVENUE BY : SHRI DAYA INDER SINGH SIDHU, ADDL. CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 1 8.06.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.06.2020 / ORDER PER DIVA SINGH THESE THREE APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE BEI NG TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WHEREIN IN EACH OF THE APPEAL GROUND NO. 2 REMAINS IDENTICAL. 2. THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. AR AND THE LD. DR ARE ALSO COMMON. ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED IN ITA 556/CHD/2019 WERE STATED TO BE COMMON BY THE PARTIES. ITA 554,555&556 /CHD/2019 PAGE 2 OF 4 THE ASSESSEE HEREIN CHALLENGES THE EX-PARTE ORDER D ATED 04.02.2019 OF CIT(A)-1 LUDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2011- 12 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS INCLUDING GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ON THE LEGALITY OF THE ORDER PASSED. THESE GROUN DS READ AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE WORTHY CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE LAW, FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JU STICE, EQUITY, AND ALL OTHER KNOWN PRINCIPLES OF LAW. 2. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSI NG THE ORDER AS EX-PARTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 05.02.2019 HOWEVER THE NOTICE OF DATE FIXED FOR HEA RING WAS SERVED ON 08.02.2019 I.E. AFTER THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING. 3. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTE D BEFORE THE CIT(A) IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER ITSELF. IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE . HOWEVER, WHEN THE AFORESAID APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, TH E APPELLANT KEPT SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS ON SOME GROUND OR THE OTHER. S EVERAL REMINDERS REMAINED UNHEEDED, WHICH PROVES BEYOND DO UBT THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN SERIOUSLY PROSECUTIN G THE APPEAL, VOLUNTARILY FILED BY HIM. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THI S APPEAL CANNOT BUT BE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY . THE LD. AR PLEADED THAT ON THE DATE THE APPEAL WAS HEAR D, HE HAD NO NOTICE OF IT. 4. THE LD. SR.DR WAS HEARD WHO HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE REMAND BACK. 5. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D IS ALSO U/S 144 OF THE ACT AS THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF TH E CLAIM MADE INITIALLY ORALLY WAS NEVER SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASS ESSEE. IN THE ITA 554,555&556 /CHD/2019 PAGE 3 OF 4 CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. SR.DR CLARIFIED THAT THE REM AND MAY BE DIRECTED ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE ENSURES PROPER COMPLI ANCE. THE LD. AR IN RESPONSE THERETO AGREED THAT ALL THE DOCUMENT S ETC. WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO IN THE EVENTUALITY OF REMAND OF THE ORDER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT WHER EAS THE IMPUGNED ORDER CANNOT BE UPHELD AS IT IS NOT IN TER MS OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1962 AND EVEN OTHERWISE WITHOUT A PROPER NOTIC E, AS HAS BEEN ALLEGED IN GROUND NO. 2 THE HEARING CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE EYES OF LAW. SINCE EVEN BEFORE T HE AO EVIDENCES ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ACCEPTING TH E ORAL UNDERTAKING OF THE LD. AR, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SE T ASIDE AND THE ISSUES ARE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO ENSURE FULL AND PROPER PARTICIPATION . IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IN THE EVENTUALITY OF ABUSE OF THE TRUST REPOSED, AO WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS AN ORDER ON THE BASIS O F THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 7. IN ITA 554 AND 555/CHD/2019, THE ASSESSEE CHALLE NGES SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-1, LUDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2010-11 AND 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEARS DATED 05.02.2019 WHEREIN G ROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE IDENTICAL TO GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 RAISED I N THE EARLIER APPEAL. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE HEREIN BEING THAT IN TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED U/S ITA 554,555&556 /CHD/2019 PAGE 4 OF 4 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THA T THE CLAIM MADE IN REGARD TO DEPOSITS FROM AGRICULTURAL SOURCE S WAS NEVER SUBSTANTIATED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES HEREIN ALSO REMAIN THE SAME. IN VIEW THEREOF, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN ITA 556/CHD /2019, BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE ALSO RESTORED BACK TO THE AO SETT ING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO PARTIC IPATE FULLY AND FAIRLY. THE AO SHALL PASS AN ORDER IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. HOWEVER, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IN THE EVENTUALITY O F ABUSE OF THE TRUST REPOSED, THE AO SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS A N ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SAID ORD ER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19 TH JUNE,2020. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. / CIT4. ( )/ THE CIT(A)5. , , / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR