Sh. Gopal Krishan, Ambala City V. ITO, Ambala

ITA 674/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68486 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 674/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 SHRI GOPAL KRISHAN, VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, # 378, SECTOR 8, WARD 1, URBAN ESTATE, AMBALA. AMBALA CITY. PAN NO. AHVPK-0846Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR DATE OF HEARING : 02.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.09.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), PANCHKULA DATED 19.12.2012 RELATING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT). 2. THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS VIDE GROUND NOS. 1 & 2, WHICH READ AS UNDER : 1.THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE HER ON MERITS WHICH IS ARBITRA RY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) UNDER WHICH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN 2 DISMISSED WITHOUT ADJUDICATING UPON THE MERITS OF T HE CASE. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) AND THE ADDITIONS MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE, THUS UPHELD BY THE CIT(APPEALS). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 09.10.2012 UNDER WHICH THE NOTICE COULD NOT BE SERV ED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AU THORITIES WITH THE REMARKS NO SUCH PERSON. ANOTHER NOTICE DATED 01.10.2012 WAS ISSUED FIXING THE APPEAL FOR 09.10.2012. THE ASSES SEE MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THE MATTER WAS ADJO URNED TO 23.10.2012, ON WHICH DATE NONE APPEARED. THEREAFTE R, ANOTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 06.12.2012 FIXING THE APPEAL FOR 17.1 2.2012, ON WHICH DATE ALSO NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS, THUS DISMISSED UPHOLDING THE ADDITION S MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS TO ADJUDICATE THE MATTER AFTER AFFO RDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. FURTHER, UNDER SUB-SECTION (6) TO SECTION 250 OF THE ACT, IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) SH ALL PASS THE ORDER IN WRITING ON MERITS, ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL MOVED BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR NON-APPEARANCE AN D THEREAFTER THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN S UMMARILY UPHELD. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO DISCUSS THE MERITS O F THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE VARIOUS ADDITION S MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE ABOVESAI D FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIP LES OF NATURAL 3 JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK T O THE FILE OF CIT(APPEALS) WHO SHALL ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES ON MER ITS, AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE AND APPEAR O N THE APPOINTED DATE/S OF HEARING AND PUT FORWARD HIS SUBMISSIONS O N VARIOUS ISSUES. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE ALLOW THE GROUND NOS.1 & 2 RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SET ASIDE THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(APPEALS). WE ARE NOT ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUN D NOS. 3 TO 5 ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, AS THE APPEAL IS RESTORED B ACK TO CIT(APPEALS). 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 20 TH SEPTEMBER,2013 POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH