M/s Canara Bank, Una V. ITO (TDS), Una

ITA 591/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6529 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKUR BANSAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS 591 & 592/ CHD/2017 A.Y.: 2013-14 & 2014-15 CANARA BANK, VS. THE ITO, NANGAL ROAD, UNA. UNA. PAN NO. : PTLC10760B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANKUR BANSAL RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDER KANTA DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.12.2017 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH,JM BY THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CORRECTN ESS OF THE CONSOLIDATED EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 23.01.2017 PERTAINING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 AND 2013-14 IS ASSAILED ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWE VER SINCE THE PARTIES WERE HEARD ONLY IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 2 ON THE LIMITED PRAYER OF REMAND, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS PASSED IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. EX PA RTE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSEE ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY . 2. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS AN EX-PARTE ORDER, ACCORDINGLY, EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM ARE REQUIRED TO BE FILED. ADDRESSING THE REASON FOR NON-REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED, THAT THE COUNSEL WHO WAS ENGAGED TO APPEAR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE APPARENTLY DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDIN GS AND ALSO DID NOT CARE TO INFORM THE ASSESSEE ABOUT HIS NON-PARTICIPATORY AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR, MANAGER OF CANARA BANK, UNA AFFIRMING THESE FACTS WAS RELIED UPON. REACTING THEREUPON, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E MANAGER HAS AFFIRMED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE IMPRES SION AND BELIEF THAT THE COUNSEL HIRED WAS DULY ATTENDING THE INCOME TAX APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE, INFACT DID NOT HAVE AN Y INFORMATION THAT ITA 591&592/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 2 OF 2 THE COUNSEL DID NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. SR.D R DID NOT OPPOSE THE REQUEST CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE ORAL PRAYER OF THE LD. AR. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD. ACCEPTING THE ORAL UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE LD. AR THAT T HE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WHILE SO DIR ECTING, IT IS HOPED THAT THE OPPORTUNITY SO PROVIDED IS NOT ABUSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS UTILIZED BY PARTICIPATING FULLY AND FAIRLY IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T HE SAID AUTHORITY AS IN THE EVENTUALITY OF ABUSE OF THE SAME, THE LD. CIT(A) WOU LD BE AT LIBERTY PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THUS , IT IS HOPED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN INTEREST MAKES FULL AND PROPER COMPLIAN CE BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COUR T AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH DECEMBER,2017. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SI NGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.