KUNAL GUPTA, JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER(II)-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 626/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6843 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAWANI SHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.626/ASR./2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2011-12 SH. KUNAL GUPTA, S/O SH. SHAM GUPTA, 43, PRITHVI NAGAR, NEAR KISHANPURA, JALANDHAR VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II(1), JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AFVPG7362M ASSESSEE BY : SH. J. S. BHASIN, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. BHAWAN I SHANKAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.01.2019 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-1,JALANDHAR. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMIS SING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BY WAY OF AN EX-PARTE ORDER, WITH OUT AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO ASSESS EE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DECIDED THE AP PEAL ON MERITS ON VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN IN APP EAL FILED BEFORE HER, AS REPRODUCED IN PARA 2 OF IMPUGN ED ORDER. 3. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE O THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO . 1 RELATES TO THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 84/ASR./2018 SIMMERJIT S INGH BASSI 2 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE E-FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2011 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.4,51,680/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) ON 2 1.12.2011. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE AO FRAM ED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AT AN INCOME OF RS .14,57,200/- BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.9,65,516/- ON ACCOUNT OF U NACCOUNTED INCOME FROM JOB WORK AND RS.40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON BUILDING. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DECIDED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PURSUE THE CASE PROPERLY AND DID NOT AVAIL ANY OF THE OPPORTUNITIES ALLOWED TO HIM TO REPRESENT THE C ASE. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. HE SIMPL Y REPRODUCED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY O BSERVING IN PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: 6. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL ON REC ORD, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FU RNISH ANY SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY IT. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS PASSED WELL REASONED ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING ALL TH E RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FI LED ANY REPLY OR EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, FOR REASONS RECORDED IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R IS UPHELD AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET STATED THAT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THAT THE CASE WAS NOT DECIDED ON MERIT. HE REQUESTED TO ITA NO. 84/ASR./2018 SIMMERJIT S INGH BASSI 3 REMAND THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPE RATE AND NEVER APPEARED. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DECID E THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE EX-PARTE ORDER, BUT HAD NOT GIVEN REASONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONCLUSION. HE SIMPLY CONFIRMED THE VIEW TAK EN BY THE AO IN SLIP SHOD MANNER. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CO NDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. WE, THEREFORE, BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 07/01/2019) SD/- SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER V ICE PRESIDENT DATED: 07/01/2019 *SUBODH*