Aman Bawa, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-6(1), Ludhiana

ITA 741/CHANDI/2019

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sh. Aman Bawa against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ludhiana, which confirmed the addition of Rs.63,03,000 under sections 68, 69, 69A, and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The primary contention was the lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard during the assessment and appellate proceedings. The assessee, a student at the time, was unaware of the legal proceedings and did not inform his father about the receipt of the order, leading to an 8-day delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and proper consideration of the case on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127830 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2019
• Other Referred Cases: S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ, च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 7 4 1 / C H D / 2 0 1 9 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sh. Aman Bawa, House No.1, Villa Perl, Threeke Road, Ludhiana Vs. बनाम The ITO, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: BBAZPB7763C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate राज व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr.DR स ु नवाई क तार#ख/Date of Hearing : 25.04.2023 उदघोषणा क तार#ख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2023 आदेश/Order Per A.D. Jain, Vice President: This is assessee’s appeal against the order dated 16.11.2018 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ludhiana [herein referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2013-14 taking the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in concurring with the A.O. in confirming the addition of Rs.63,03,000/- u/s 68 r/w section 69, 69 A and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the assessee had failed to provide any explanation regarding the said cash deposit whereas as per the 741-Chd-2019 – Aman Bawa, Ludhiana 2 assessee the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and further CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2. That the assessee prays for any consequential relief and/or legal claim arising out of this appeal before the disposal of the same. 3. That the assessee prays for any addition, deletion, amendment and modification in the grounds of appeal before the disposal of the same in the interest of substantial justice to the assessee. 2. There is a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal. The ld. Counsel for the Assessee, vide his Application dated 24.4.2023, for condonation of delay, submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was caused as the Assessee, who was a student doing B.Tech at that time, had received the order on 6.3.2019. The Assessee was not familiar with the Income Tax laws and he forgot to inform the receipt of aforesaid order to his father; that when the father of the Assessee came to know about the passing of the appellate order through the Counsel, without any further delay, the appeal was filed and thus, there was a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal. It has further been submitted that the bona fide delay was neither intentional nor willful or deliberate and there was no intention to avoid the litigation. A 741-Chd-2019 – Aman Bawa, Ludhiana 3 request has been made to condone the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have considered the facts and reasoning furnished by the Assessee. In view of the detailed explanation and reasoning given by the Assessee, finding that the Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the Appeal in time, the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. Vide the aforesaid grounds, the grievance of the Assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the AO, as the assessment order was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing and the ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by passing the ex-parte order without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee, through his written submissions, submitted that the Assessee was not provided with opportunity of being heard by the authorities below. It has also been submitted that the Assessee, at the relevant time of assessment, was studying and was unaware of the stringent provisions of the Income Tax Act; that being a young student, he went into anxiety because of the heavy demand and could not inform the same to his parents. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Assessee had received only one notice dated 16.11.2018 and that was not informed 741-Chd-2019 – Aman Bawa, Ludhiana 4 by him to his parents due to anxiety and an ex-parte order was passed in this case. It is prayed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the matter may be remanded to the Assessing officer for a proper appreciation of the controversy. 6. The ld. D.R., though, has placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. Heard. We have gone through the orders of the authorities below and find that the appeal of the Assessee has been dismissed merely on the basis of the non-prosecution by the CIT(A). We find that the ld. CIT (A), has dismissed the appeal without considering the material available on record, as also without going into the merits of the case. As such, an opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the assessee to represent his case fully before the lower authorities. Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.)] and incumbent on the authority to decide an appeal on merit. 8. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, since even before the AO, the matter was proceeded with ex-parte qua the Assessee, finding that an opportunity of hearing requires to be afforded to the Assessee for a just and proper decision, the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the 741-Chd-2019 – Aman Bawa, Ludhiana 5 fresh proceedings before AO. All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed. Order pronounced on 27.04.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( A.D. JAIN ) Accountant Member Vice President Dated : 27.04.2023 “आर.के.” आदेश क त)ल*प अ+े*षत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent 3. आयकर आय ु 0त/ CIT 4. *वभागीय त न4ध, आयकर अपील#य आ4धकरण, च6डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar