M/s Druchem India Limited, Panchkula V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 76/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6518 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-10-2019
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND SUDARSHAN SR DR
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Question of law; Right to appeal; Set aside; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(1); 250; 147; 132

Judgement Text

1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH A, CHANDIGARH .., !' '# $, % &' BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, J M ITA NO. 76/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 DRUCHEM INDIA LIMITED HOUSE NO. 1196, SECTOR-10 PANCHKULA THE ITO WARD 4(2) CHANDIGARH PAN NO: AABCD5047J APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO. 255/CHD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 DRUCHEM INDIA LIMITED HOUSE NO. 1196, SECTOR-10 PANCHKULA THE ITO WARD-1 PANCHKULA PAN NO: AABCD5047J APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VED JAIN, ADVOCATE #!' REVENUE BY : SHRI ARVIND SUDARSHAN, SR. DR $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 03/10/2019 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 /10/2019 &(/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 18/11/2014 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), C HANDIGARH AND DT. 30/01/2019 BY THE LD. CIT(A)-4, LUDHIANA. 2 2. SINCE THE APPEALS RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE AN D WERE HEARD TOGETHER SO THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATE D ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 3. FIRST WE WILL DEAL WITH THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 75 /CHD/2015 WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO U PHELD THE DECISION OF A.O. IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 147/148 AS LD. A.O. HAS NOT EXPRESSED ANY 'REA SONS TO BELIEVE' TO ISSUE SUCH NOTICES. 2. THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFYING IN UPHOL DING THE ADDITION OF RS 80, 00,000/- AS INCOME EARNED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY ITSELF FROM UNDIS CLOSED SOURCES & INTRODUCED IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 3. THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLD ING DISALLOWANCE OF RS 1, 92,808/- AS EXPENSE NOT INCIDENTAL TO INCOME EARNED & TREATING INTEREST INCOME AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE ALSO MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMI SSION OF FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS: 1. THE APPLICANT HAS FILED THE ABOVE SAID APPEAL BEARI NG ITA NO. 76/CHANDI/2015 ON 20 TH JANUARY, 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2014 P ASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CHANDIGARH UN DER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THAT WHILE FILING THE APPEAL, THE APPLICANT HAS RAI SED 3 GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THAT WHILE FILING THE APPEAL THE APPELLANT INADVERT ENTLY HAS LEFT OUT THE GROUND OF APPEAL ON THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO THE EX-PARTE ORDE R PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER AND AD EQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4. THAT ACCORDINGLY, THE APPLICANT IS FILING ADDITIONA L GROUND OF APPEAL. 5. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GR OUND MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED AS THE SAME GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS BAD IN LAW. '4.(I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN PASSING AN EX-PA RTE ORDER. 4.(II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS BAD IN EYES OF LAW AS THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER AND ADEQUATE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3 4. (III) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS UNS USTAINABLE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONS BEYOND ITS CONTROL TO REPRESEN T ITS CASE.' 6. THAT THE GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPLICATION IS AN IM PORTANT GROUND GOING TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, AND ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SA ME ARE ALREADY PART OF RECORD. 7. THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND MAY BE TAKEN ON RECORD. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PURELY LEGAL GROUNDS AND NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED AS THE MATERIA L RELEVANT TO THESE GROUNDS IS ALREADY AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE RELIANCE WAS P LACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERM AL POWER CO. LTD. (NTPC) VS. CIT (1997) REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383. 5. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR OPPOSED THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PUREL Y LEGAL GROUNDS AND NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED. THESE GROUNDS GO TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE, THEREFORE THE SAME ARE ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE RATI O LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO . LTD. (NTPC) VS. CIT (1997) REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY , AFTER GIVING BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL AN OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD , PASS SUCH ORDERS THEREON AS IT THINKS FIT. THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DEALING WITH APPEALS IS THUS EXPRESSED IN THE WIDEST POSSIBLE TERMS. THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS BEFORE THE TAXING AUTHORITIES IS TO ASSESS CORRECTLY THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSE E, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IF, FOR EXAMPLE, AS A RESULT OF A JUDICIAL DECISION GIVEN WHILE THE APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS FOUND THAT A NON-TAXABLE ITEM IS TAXED OR A PERMISS IBLE DEDUCTION IS DENIED, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM RAISING THAT QUESTION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME, SO LONG AS THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE ON RECORD I N RESPECT OF THE ITEM. THERE IS NO REASON TO RESTRICT THE POWER OF THE TRI BUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 ONLY TO DECIDE THE GROUNDS WHICH ARISE FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT HAVE A RIGHT TO FILE AN APPEAL / CROSS-OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT BE PREVENTED FROM CONSIDERING QUESTIONS OF LAW ARISING IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED EARL IER. THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS 4 CONFINED ONLY TO ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE APPEAL B EFORE THE, COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS TOO NARROW A VIEW TO TAKE OF THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL . UNDOUBTEDLY, THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE DISCRETION TO ALL OW OR NOT TO ALLOW A NEW GROUND TO BE RAISED. BUT WHERE THE TRIBUNAL IS ONLY REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FROM FACTS WHICH ARE ON RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, THERE IS NO REASON WHY SUCH A QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE RAISED WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THAT QUESTION IN ORDER TO CORRECTLY ASSESS THE TAX LIABILITY OF A N ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT PRO VIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 8. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 31/03/2006 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 2,54,992/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). THEREAFTER A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WA S CONDUCTED AT THE OFFICE PREMISES OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY SHRI TARUN GOYAL, C.A AT 13/34 WEA, ARYA SAMAJ ROAD, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI BY INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT ON 15/09/2008. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES PROVED THAT THE COMPANIES RUN, CONTROLLED AND MANAGED BY SHRI TARUN GOYAL WERE NOT GENUINE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 80, 00,000/- FROM THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY SHRI TARUN GOYAL AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY: 1. MAHANIVESH INDIA LTD. RS. 15,00,000/- 2. SADGURU FINMIN (P) LTD., RS. 20,00,000/- 3. TAURUS IRON & STEEL CO. LTD., RS. 25,00,000/- 4. TEJASVI INVESTMENTS (P) LTD., RS. 20,00,000/- TOTAL RS. 80,00,000/- 9. THE AO INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 1 47 R.W.S 148 OF THE ACT ON 27/03/2012. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN ALREADY FILED MAY 5 BE TREATED AS FILED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. T HE AO VIDE NOTICE DATED 04/03/2013 ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS UNDE R: 4. THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION AS STATED BY THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY VIDE LETTER AND 19.2.2013 HAVE BEEN EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACTS ON RECORD. IN ADDITION, THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON IN RESPECT OF T HE JUDGMENT OF THE CASES QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND FOUND NO MERIT IN IT. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON THE ASSESSEE. ARE DIFFERENT FROM T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE. THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION CAN NOT BE EST ABLISHED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS/DETAILS SUPPLIED BY YOUR GOODSELF. 5. FROM THE FACTS ADDUCED ABOVE, IS EVIDENT THAT THE A SSESSEE COMPANY HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN INCOME EARNED FROM UNDISCLOSED S OURCES IN THE GUISE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THE PARTIES CONCERNED. 6. IT IS THEREFORE, PROPOSED TO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 80,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME EARNED FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES INTRODUCED AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. HOWEVER, BEFORE DOING SO, YOU AR& HEREBY GIV EN AN OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH YOUR EXPLANATION/JUSTIFICATION OTHERWISE IT WILL BE PRES UMED THAT SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 80,00,000/- INTRODUCED DURING THE YEAR IS IN FACTS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND WILL BE TAXED ACCORDINGLY. 7. AS PER P&L ACCOUNT, AN INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST OF RS. 4,47,800/- HAS BEEN SHOWN OUT OF WHICH EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,92,808 HAS B EEN DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT. SINCE THE INTEREST INCOME ARC NOT ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME OUT IS OBVIOUSLY ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' OUT OF W HICH THE DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 57 OF THE I.T.ACT ARE ALLO WABLE. IT IS, THEREFORE, PROPOSED TO DISALLOW THE EXPENSES OF RS. 1,92,808/- HOWEVER, BEFORE DOIN G SO. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE FURNISH YOUR EXPLANATION AND JUSTIFICATION OF SUCH CLAIM. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE REPLY DATED 21/03/2013 AS UNDER: 1. THAT NO WHERE IN THE COPIES OF SAID STATEMENTS THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS DRUCHEM INDIA LTD; HAS BEEN MENTIONED OR STATED. 2. THE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED DURING SEARCH OPERATIO NS IN SEPTEMBER 2008, ON DIFFERENT DATES RELEVANT TO AY 2009-10. THERE IS NO THING ON RECORD OR IN STATEMENT, OF ANY TRANSACTION RELATED TO AY 2005-06 THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION. 3. IN THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 11. ON PAGE 9-/194/52 OF THE COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 16/09/2008, AS PROVIDED TO US, THERE IS THE NAME OF M/S TAURUS IRON & STEEL CO. PRIVATE LIMITED, REGARDING HOLDING OF CASH IN HANK ONLY. TH IS IS A COMPANY FROM WHAM THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN THE AY 2005 -06. DURING OPERATIONS ON 15/09/2008 PHYSICAL CASH WAS F OUND BELONGING TO M/S TAURUS AS PER THEIR BOOKS, TO THE TUNE OF RS. 12.50 LACS, AS STAT ED THEREIN THE STATEMENT. BUI THE STATEMENT IN THIS PARAH, TOO, DOES NOT RELATE TO THE TRANSACT ION OF AY 2005 06 WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IN ANY WAY. THE HOLDING OF CASH IN HANK BY THE OTHER COMPANY IN THE THREE YEARS FOLLOWING, DOES NOT HAVE ANY RELATION WITH TH E ASSESSEE. 4. THOUGH AS PER THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 13 ON PAGE 9-/211/35 OF THE STATEMENT, DT. 15/09/2008 SH. TARUN GOYAL HAS STATE D AS A DIRECTOR OF M/ TEJASVI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD; BUT NO WHERE IT HAS BE EN STATED OR PUT ON RECORD 6 ANY EVIDENCE THAT HE DID ANY ACCOMMODATION TRANSACT ION WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY NAMING DRUCHEM INDIA TO DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 2005-06. EXCEPT, AS MENTIONED IN ABOVE PARAH 3 AND 4 THERE I S-NO MENTION OF ANY COMPANY WITH WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD ANY TRANSACTION, IN ANY YEAR . ACCORDINGLY AS STATED ABOVE, THE STATEMENTS OF SH. TARUN GOYAL DO NO EVIDENCE PUT ON RECORD ANYTHING ABOUT OUR TRANSACTIONS WITH ANY THE COMPANIES IN QUESTION AS ENQUIRED VIDE YOUR NOTICE U/S 147/148, RELEVANT TO THE AY 20 05-06, THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, SO AS TO TREAT THE TRANSACTIONS AS ACCOMMODATION. HOPE YOUR GOOD OFFICE WILL AGREE WITH US THAT ON TH E BASIS OF PERUSAL OF STATEMENT ON RECORD AS PROVIDED TO US, THERE IS NOTHING EVIDENTI AL WHICH MAY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION AS ACCOMMODA TION ENTRIES. 10. THE AO HOWEVER DID NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 80,00,000/-, HE ALSO A DDED ANOTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 1,92,808/- BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 4,47,800/- AND DEBITED THE EXPENSES OF RS. 1,92,808 /- WHICH WERE NOT ALLOWABLE. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY PASSING THE EX-PARTE ORDER. HE OBSERVED THAT NOBODY ATTENDED ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 18 /11/2014 THE NOTICE FOR WHICH WAS SENT BY SPEED POST. 11. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 12. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSE E AND PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 18/11/2014 I.E; THE DATE WHICH WA S STATED TO BE FIXED FOR HEARING BY HIM. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS UNSUSTAINABLE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY THE REASONS BEYOND ITS CONTROL TO REPRESENT ITS CASE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T THE AO ALSO WITHOUT REBUTTING THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI TARUN GOYAL DID NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE, TO PUT ON RECORD ABOUT THE TRANS ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH ANY OF THE COMPANIES IN QUESTION, MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THEREFORE NEITHER THE A O NOR THE LD. CIT(A) HAD 7 GIVEN DUE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HE REQUESTED TO REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 13. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR SUBMITT ED THAT THE AO HAD GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTE R CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. IT WAS FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATE AND DID NOT APPEAR BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE HE HAD NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DECIDE THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER EX-PARTE, HE SIMPLY STATED THAT THE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SENT THROUGH SPEED POST, HOW EVER, IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE AO WITHOUT REBUTTING THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD NO LINK WITH THE COMPANIES ALLEGED BY THE AO FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT AS MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT OF SH RI TARUN GOYAL, MADE THE ADDITION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO MIGHT HAVE CO NSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WITHOUT PROVIDING A NY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND WITHOUT REBUTTING THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE IN THE REPLY DT. 21/03/2013, MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. IN OUR OPIN ION THE REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT PROV IDED TO THE ASSESSEE EITHER BY THE AO OR BY THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. WE, THEREFORE, BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTIC E DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE AD JUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8 15. IN ITA NO. 255/CHD/2019 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE RELATE TO THE SUSTENANCE OF THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO ON THE Q UANTUM ADDITION WHICH WE HAVE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO IN THE FOR MER PART OF THIS ORDER. SINCE THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS DIRE CTLY RELATED TO THE QUANTUM ADDITION THEREFORE THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE PENALT Y UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE DE CIDED ALONGWITH THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE QUANTUM ADDITION. 16. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/10/2019 . SD/- SD/- '# $ .., (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAI NI) % &'/ JUDICIAL MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 21/10/2019 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE