ITO, Mohali V. Smt. Neeraj Singhal, Mohali

ITA 702/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1604 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Right to appeal
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.702/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 M/S AMANDEEP RICE MILL VS. THE ACIT GRAM UDYOG SAMITI CIRCLE, LUDHIANA KHANNA PAN NO. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SMT. RAJINDER KAUR DATE OF HEARING : 07/10/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/10/2015 ORDER PER H.L. KARWA V.P THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA, DT. 23/03/2015, RELATING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E AO FRAMED ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT), ON 26/03/2013, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 82, 41,652/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 4,83,450/-. THE AO MADE CERTAIN ADDIT IONS / DISALLOWANCES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORD ER OF AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), AND THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DT. 23/03 /2015 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY PASSING AN EXPARTE ORDER. 2 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT A NOTICE DT. 11/03/ 2015 WAS ISSUED, FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 20/03/2015. THE SAID NOTICE WA S RECEIVED BACK WITH THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES REMARKS LEFT THE FIRM WITH TH IS NAME HAS BEEN CLOSED. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT APPARENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAS S HIFTED FROM HIS ADDRESS AND DID NOT INFORMED THE OFFICE OF LD. CIT(A) ABOUT CHA NGE IN ADDRESS. HE THEREFORE, PASSED AN EXPARTE ORDER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY AN D PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. SHRI. PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL , LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT AFFORDED AN A DEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER EXPARTE WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, AND THERE FORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. IN OUR CONSIDE RED VIEW THERE IS A SUBSTANCE IN THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF SH. PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL. IN THE CASE OF RADHIKA CHARAN BANERJEE VS. SAMBALPUR MUNICIPALITY, AIR 197 9 ORI 69, HONBLE ORISSA HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER : A RIGHT OF APPEAL WHEREVER CONFERRED INCLUDES A R IGHT OF BEING AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LAN GUAGE CONFERRING SUCH RIGHT. THAT IS A PART AND PARCEL OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATUR AL JUSTICE. WHERE AN AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO ACT IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITY, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO GIVE THE APPELLANT AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE DECID ING THE APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE ORISSA HIGH COUR T REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE PRESENT CASE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. ACCORDINGL Y, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN TOTO AND REMAND THE MATTER TO LD. CIT (A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AS SESSEE. AS REGARDS THE MERITS OF THE CASE NO COMMENTS ARE BEING OFFERED. 3 6. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/10/2015. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (H.L. KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 09/10/2015 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR