Sh. Prem Lal Midha, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 664/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81062 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, 665 & 666/CHD/2013 A.Y: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 , 2008-09 & 2009-10 SHRI PREM LAL MIDHA V D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 H NO. 3049 CHANDIGARH SECTOR 21-D CHANDIGARH AEVPM 5227 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI N.K. SAINI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI MANJIT SI NGH DATE OF HEARING 27.11.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09.12 .2014 O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A), CHANDIGARH DATED 8.2.2013. 2. IN THIS GROUP OF CASES VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BUT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED ON EXPARTE BASIS U/S 15 3A R.W.S. 144 OF IT ACT AND THE APPELLATE ORDERS WERE ALSO P ASSED ON EXPARTE BASIS. HE SUBMITTED THAT ON LAST DATE OF H EARING 20 DAYS TIME WAS SOUGHT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHIC H WAS NOT GRANTED AND THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING, THEREFORE THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE EXAMINATION . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT IN IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF U.T. BUILDERS & PROMOTERS LTD V DCIT IN ITAS NO. 667 TO 673/CHD/201 3 WAS PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE FILE OF 2 ASSESSING OFFICER SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COST OF RS, 15,000 PER APPEAL. HOWEVER, SINCE THIS IS A CASE OF INDIVIDUA L DIRECTOR EITHER THE COST SHOULD BE DROPPED OR ONLY NOMINAL C OST SHOULD BE IMPOSED. 3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R FOR THE REVENUE S UBMITTED THAT VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS, THEREFO RE THIS ISSUE SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY BECAUSE REMANDING OF TH E MATTER WOULD AMOUNT TO WASTAGE OF PRECIOUS TIME OF AUTHORI TIES BELOW. 4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULL Y AND FIND THAT SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF T HE ASSESSEE AND ULTIMATELY CASES WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE CENTRA L CIRCLE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A AND THEREFORE NOTICES U/S 142(1) AND 143(2) WE RE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HEARING IN ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS WAS FIXED ON VARIOUS DATES. DETAIL OF WHICH HAS BE EN INCORPORATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS AS UN DER: SR NO DESCRIPTION OF NOTICE ISSUED DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE DATE FIXED GIST OF PROCEEDINGS 1 NOTICE U/S 142(1) & 143(2) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE 9.6.2010 28.6.2010 NONE APPEARED ON THAT DATE 2 NOTICE U/S 142(1) & 143(2) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE 1.9.2010 17.9.2010 NONE APPELLATE- EARED ON THAT DATE 3 NOTICE U/S 142(1) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE 20.9.2010 20.9.2010 NO APPEARANCE WAS MADE ON THIS DATE ALSO NEITHER ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MADE 4 LETTER NO. 1334 ISSUED FOR REFIXING THE CASE 14.10.2010 20.10.2010 SHRI PRAKSHIT AGGARWAL, C.A APPEARED AND FILED POWER OF ATTORNEY. HOWEVER, NO REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES DATED 9.6.2010, 3 1.9.2010 AND 20.9.2010 WERE FILED ON THIS DATE. CASE ADJOURNED 8.11.2010 5 8.11.2010 NONE ATTENDED NOR ANY WRITTEN REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6 LETTER NO. 1434 ISSUED FOR REFIXING THE CASE 8.11.2010 12.11.2010 NONE APPEARED ON THIS DATE ALSO NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MADE 7 12.11.2010 24.11.2010 APPEARANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS COUNSEL SHRI PRIKSHIT AGGARWAL. BUT NO REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 24.11.2010, THE ASSESSEE UNDERTOOK TO FILE REPLIES TO QUESTIONNAIRES WITHIN 7 DAYS. HOWEVER, NO REPLY WAS FILED. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON EXPARTE BASIS U/S 153A R.W.S. 144 OF IT ACT. 5 THE LD. CIT(A) FIXED THE APPEALS VIDE NOTICE DATE D 10.4.2012 FOR 7.5.2012 BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER NOTICE WAS SENT FIXING THE APPEA LS ON 21.5.2012 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFIRMED THE S ERVICES OF THIS NOTICE. IN RESPONSE AN ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2012 WHICH WAS GRANTED AND THE CASES WERE FIXED ON 18.6.2012. ON THAT DATE AGAIN AN ADJOURNM ENT WAS SOUGHT AND THE CASES WERE AGAIN FIXED ON 9.7.2012 & 13.8.2012 AND AGAINST ADJOURNMENTS WERE SOUGHT. FINALLY THE C ASES WERE FIXED FOR HEARING GIVING THE ASSESSEE A LAST OPPORT UNITY ON 20.9.2012 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT NO FUR THER EXTENSION OF TIME WOULD BE ENTERTAINED. LATER ON I T WAS INTIMATED THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS CHA NGED. 4 AFTER THE CHANGE OF COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FROM 2 7.11.2012 AGAIN THE CASES WERE ADJOURNED ON 19.12.2012, 17.1. 2013 AND 31.1.2013. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING AN ADJOURNM ENT WAS SOUGHT THROUGH FAX MESSAGE. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED T HAT NO WRITTEN REPLY OR PAPERS HAVE BEEN FILED, THEREFORE SHE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEALS ON EXPARTE BASIS. THE ABOVE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TOTALLY UN- COOPERATIVE AND DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES, HAS NOT BOTHERED TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS. 6 WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN CASE OF UT BUILDERS & PRO MOTERS LTD V DCIT (SUPRA) KEEPING THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN VIEW THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN ONE LAST OPPORTUNITY AN D THE MATTERS WERE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFI CER SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COST OF RS. 15,000/- PER APPEAL. IN T HIS CASE ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES SI MILAR TO THE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN IN CASE OF UT BUILDERS & PROMOT ERS LTD. (SUPRA). FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO GAVE VARIOUS A DJOURNMENTS AS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF UT BUILDERS & PROMOTERS (SU PRA) BUT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED TOTALLY UNCOOPERATIVE. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CONSIDERING THE DECISION IN CASE O F UT BUILDERS & PROMOTERS (SUPRA) AND THE FACT THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFF ICER WITH A DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIO N THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL PAY A COST OF RS. 10,000/- PER APPEA L I.E. RS. 70,000/0 (RS. SEVENTY THOUSAND ONLY) FOR ALL THE AP PEALS TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE COST SHALL BE PAID WITHIN A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IS FURTH ER DIRECTED TO 5 COOPERATE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT TO SEEK UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENTS. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENTS A FTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS /EVIDENCES PRODUCED BE FORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.12.2014 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 09.12.2014 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR