Sh. Ravi Kumar Bansal, Mukatsar V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 699/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9782 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGHDR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 699/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI RAVI KUMAR BANSAL, VS THE DCIT, C/O M/S CHET RAM RAVI KUMAR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, 2, NEW GRAIN MARKET, LUDHIANA. MUKTSAR. PAN: ACKPB8770A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH,DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.07.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I, LUDHIANA DATED 25.03.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN PASSING EX-PARTE ORDER. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE CHALLENGED VARIOUS ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES BEFORE L D. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED IN THE 2 IMPUGNED ORDER VARIOUS DATES OF HEARING BEFORE HIM WHEN COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT . DESPITE GIVING NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSE E DID NOT ARGUE THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS DISMISSED IN DEFAULT CONSIDERING THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE MATTER REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATIO N AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT. ACCORD ING TO SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, LD. CIT(AP PEALS) IS REQUIRED TO MENTION FACTS, POINTS FOR DETERMINAT ION AND REASONS FOR DECISION IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SIMPLISTER FOR NOT PURSUING THE APPEAL . THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. MERELY BECAUSE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND ON THE DATES OF HEARING WOULD NOT BE A GROUN D TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT BECAU SE EVEN IF ASSESSEE DID NOT PURSUE THE APPEAL, THE APP EAL SHALL HAVE TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 5. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIS FILE WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD 3 TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO COOPE RATE WITH THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN FINALIZATION OF THE AP PEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SA INI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12 TH JULY, 2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD