Sh.Rangi Lal S/O Sh.Hari Chand, Ludhiana V. Income Tax Officer, Khanna

ITA 666/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0026 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(2)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH !, ' # $ , $ % & ' ( ) , *+ # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM ./ ITA NO. 666/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI RANGI LAL S/O SHRI HARI CHAND, PROP. M/S RAVINDEER STEEL INDUSTRIES GULMOHAR NAGAR KHANNA, LUDHIANA. VS THE ITO, WARD - III, KHANA. PAN NO: AANPL5972B APPELLANT RESPONDENT ! ASSESSEE BY : SHRI JASPAL SHARMA, PROXY FOR SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL,ADVOCATE ' ! REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, CIT-DR # $ % DATE OF HEARING : 15.05.2019 &'() % D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.05.2019 *./ ORDER PER DIVA SINGH,JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2017 OF CIT(A) -2 LUDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE LD. AR PLEADING INABILITY TO ARGUE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE COUNSEL HAD A PRIOR PROFESSIONAL ENGA GEMENT OUTSIDE CHANDIGARH. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACT S OF THE PRESENT CASE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GROUND RAISED, IT WAS DEEMED APP ROPRIATE TO REJECT THE APPLICATION AFTER HEARING LD. CIT-DR AND PROCEED WI TH THE PRESENT CASE EX- PARTE QUA THE APPLICANT. HOWEVER, MR. JASPAL SHARMA , PROXY COUNSEL FOR THE COUNSEL PRESENT IN THE CASE ASSISTED THE BENCH. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE PARTIES WERE HEARD ONLY ON GROUND NO . 2 RAISED IN THE APPEAL ITA 666/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 3 WHICH READS AS UNDER : THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE GR OUND OF APPEAL WITH REGARD TO INVALID SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AS PER PARA 5.3 OF HER ORDER, DATED 23.03.2015, IGNORING THE FACT THAT ADMITTEDLY AS PE R RECORD AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER (ITO,W-LLL, KHANNA), THERE IS NO PROOF OF S ERVICE OF NOTICE ON APPELLANT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT UNDER THE ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT-DR ADDRESSING THE SAID GROUND WAS UN ABLE TO SHOW ON A READING OF PARA 5.3 OF THE ORDER THAT THE GROUND WA S DECIDED IN TERMS OF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE APPLICABLE THERETO. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAID ISSUE WAS CHALLEN GED BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALSO AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FOLLOWING PARA. THE CIT(A), IT IS SEEN HAS DISMISSED IT HOLDING AS UNDER : 5.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT'S SUBMIS SION. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS OBSERVED THAT NOWHERE THE A PPELLANT HAS RAISED ANY OBJECTION REGARDING THE VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THIS RAISES SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT THE INTENTION OF THE AP PELLANT AS THE APPELLANT HAS REMAINED SILENT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS EVI DENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ATTENDED THE PROCEE DINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AS PER FIRST PAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PARA ONE THE APPEL LANT HIMSELF AND THROUGH HIS COUNSEL SHRI HUKUMINDER SAHI, CA HAS ATTENDED THE PROCEEDIN GS FROM TIME TO TIME AND HAS COMPLIED WITH THE INITIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS SEEN THAT NOWHERE THE ASSESSEE OR ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATI VE HAS RAISED ANY OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO NON-SERVICE OF INITIAL NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 143(2) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THEREFORE, RAISING THIS THE JUNCTURE DOES NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE. AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF APPELLANTS CLAIM WITH REGARD TO NON-SERVICE OF NOT ICE U/S 143(2) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED . 4.1. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LD. CIT(A) MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN ADDRESSING THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE . WHAT WAS RELEVANT AND NECESSARY FOR DETERMINING THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER THE ASSERTIONS MADE FOR SEEKING QUASHING OF THE ORDER BY WAY OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY WERE CORRECT ON FACTS OR NOT. ACCORDINGL Y, IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS CHALLENGED SERVICE O F NOTICE U/S 143(2) EVEN IF THE CHALLENGE IS POSED AT THE FIRST APPELLATE ST AGE, THE SAID CHALLENGE CANNOT BE OUSTED ON ACCOUNT OF THE INTENTIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE, THE TAX AUTHORITIES ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE CHALLENGE ON F ACTS AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER ADDRESSING THE NECESSARY AND RELEVANT F ACTS AND CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE IN CASE OF ANY ADVERSE VIEW IS BEING FORMED BEFORE PASSING OF THE ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, TO SET RIGHT THI S SHORTCOMING EVIDENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET A SIDE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ITA 666/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 3 OF 3 LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO FIRST ADDRESS THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE AND THEREAFTER PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS, IF NEED BE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFFORDED A REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH MAY,2019. SD/- SD/- ( % & ' ( ) ) ( ! ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SINGH) *+ #/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' #/ JUDICIAL MEMBER & % '+ ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT - 2. / THE RESPONDENT - 3. # / / CIT 4. # / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , % 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7$ / GUARD FILE '+ # / BY ORDER, 8 ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR