Sh. Sohan Lal Prop., Katra. V. The Income tax Officer,

ITA 572/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 57220914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K BANSAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 572 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998-99 PAN: ACCPL3825G SH. SOHAN LAL PROP. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, M/S SANSAR CHAND SOHAN LAL UDHAMPUR, (J&K) DHABA, KATRA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. S.K. BANSAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 30.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.09.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.07.2013 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), JA MMU, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FAC T THAT THE APPELLANT WAS RUNNING SMALL DHABA AS A PROPRIETOR. II. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THE PROV ISIONS OF MODE OF SERVICE U/S 282 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND IGNORED THE 2 I.T.A. NO. 572 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998-99 PROCEDURE OF SERVICE AS PROVIDED UNDER THE CIVIL PR OCEDURE ACT, 1908. THE SERVICE THROUGH THE NOTICE SERVER WAS NOT MADE. III. THAT THE LAST NOTICE DATE 25.06.2013 FOR TAKING UP THE APPEAL ON 15.07.2013 WAS NEVER SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT NOR IT IS WITHIN MY KNOWLEDGE. IV. THAT THE LEARNED CIT HAS NOT DISPOSED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. V. THAT THE ORDER MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE, MODIFIED OR ANY OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF BE ALLOWED. 2) LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SH. S.K. BANSAL , ADVOCATE, STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A SMALL DHABA I N THE NAME OF M/S SANSAR CHAND SOHAN LAL DHABA IN THE VILLAGE SITUATE D ON THE HILLY AREAS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RESIDIN G IN A HILLY AREA AT VILLAGE ARLI (KATRA), WHICH IS AT THE DISTANCE OF ABOUT 40 KMS. FROM UDHAMPUR. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL WITH CIT(A), JAMMU, W HICH IS AT THE DISTANCE OF 60 KMS. FROM UDHAMPUR AND SERVICES OF N OTICE UPON THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH A HILLY AREA IS NOT SO EASY. HE PO INTED OUT THAT THE LAST NOTICE FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL DATED 25.06.2012 F OR TAKING UP THE APPEAL ON 15.07.2013 AT JAMMU, WAS NEVER SERVED UPON THE A SSESSEE, NOR THE DATE OF HEARING WAS WITHIN HIS KNOWLEDGE, AND THE R EVENUE AUTHORITY HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORTS TO SERVE THE NOTICE THROUGH PR OCESS SERVER KEEPING IN VIEW THE REMOTE LOCATION OF BUSINESS AS WELL AS RESIDENCE OF THE 3 I.T.A. NO. 572 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998-99 ASSESSEE BUT DESPITE THIS, THE LEARNED FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EX PARTE BY PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.07.2013. 3) HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SE T ASIDE TO LEARNED CIT(A), JAMMU, FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. TO S UPPORT HIS ARGUMENTS, SH. S.K. BANSAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 02.09.2013 OF SH. SOHAN LAL, SON OF LATE SH. KRISHAN DUTT, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 4) LEARNED DR HAS OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5) I HAVE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AN D PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES, SPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREBY LEARNED CIT(A), JAMMU, HAS DISMISSED THE AP PEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EX PARTE. NO DOUBT LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS MENTIONED THE FOUR PRECEDING DATES OF HEARING OF TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, BUT I AM OF THE VIE W THAT THE LAST NOTICE OF HEARING OF APPEAL DATED 25.06.2013 FIXING THE CA SE OF ASSESSEE FOR HEARING ON 15.07.2013 AT JAMMU, WAS NEVER SERVED UP ON THE ASSESSEE. I 4 I.T.A. NO. 572 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998-99 FOUND THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT NOTICE DATED 25.06.2013 FIXING THE APPEAL FOR 15.07.2013 WAS ISS UED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ORDINAR Y POST OR BY REGISTERED POST OR BY ANY OTHER MODE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 02.09. 2013 INFORMING THIS BENCH THAT NOTICE DATED 25.06.2013 FOR TAKING UP TH E APPEAL ON 15.07.2013 AT JAMMU, WAS NEVER SERVED UPON HIM AND THE DATE OF HEARING WAS ALSO NOT WITHIN HIS KNOWLEDGE. LEARNED DR HAS A LSO NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN FALSIFY THE STATEMENT MADE BY LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 6) KEEPING IN VIEW THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 02.09.2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW, WHICH DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. ACC ORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I CANCEL THE IMPUGNED ORDER DA TED 23.07.2013 AND SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A), JAM MU, WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFTER AFFORDIN G OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5 I.T.A. NO. 572 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998-99 7) IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 SD/./- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SH. SOHAN LAL PROP. M/S SANSAR CHAND SOHAN LAL DHABA, KATRA 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, UDHAMPUR, (J&K) 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU 4. THE CIT, JAMMU 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.