SUTLEJ SERVICE STATION PRIVATE LIMITED, NAWANSHAHAR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

ITA 78/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7121 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2019
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VEDPAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: BHAGAT
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.78/ASR./2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2013-14 M/S SUTLEJ SERVICE STATION PVT. LTD., BANGA ROAD, NAWANSHAHAR VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AABCS9095B ASSESSEE BY : SH. M. R. BHAGAT, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. VED PA L SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.01.2019 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2017 OF LD. CIT(A)-5, LUDHIANA. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L: 1. THE ORDER IS PERVERSE, ARBITRARY, AND NOT BASED ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND TH E LAW. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PASSED THE ORDER IN THE PRESENCE OF PERSONS WHO SUBMITTED APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING BUT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS N OT HAVING POWER OF ATTORNEY. IT IS PRAYED THAT ORDER M AY BE CANCELLED. ITA NO. 78/ASR./2018 SUTLEJ SERVICE STATION PV T. LTD. 2 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED TO CONFIRM ADDITION OF DISALLOWANCE RS. 10693/- FROM EXPENSES ON PROPORTIO NATE BASIS OF DIVIDEND INCOME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS OLD AND NO EXPENSES WERE INCURRED TO EARN DIVIDEND. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED I N CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 129900/- BEING LOSS OF CASH SNATCHED BY TERRORIST FROM AN EMPLOYEE OF ASSE SSEE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ANY GROUND ( S) OR ADD ANY NEW GROUND (S) BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY DISPOSED OFF. 3. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND N O. 2 RELATES TO THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN HEARING THE APPE AL WHEN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FURNISHED BY THE AS SESSEE THROUGH A PERSON WHO WAS NOT AUTHORIZED. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2013 DECLARING NIL INCOME. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE AO FRAMED THE ASS ESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS.3,20,203/-. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DID NOT FIND MERIT AND DISMISSED THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WRONGLY MENTIONED THAT SH. AMIT KAPOOR, CA WAS PRESENT AND ARGUED THE MATTER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SH. AM IT KAPOOR, CA WAS NOT AUTHORIZED PERSON BUT WENT TO SOUGHT THE ADJOURNMEN T ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 78/ASR./2018 SUTLEJ SERVICE STATION PV T. LTD. 3 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT POWER OF ATTORNEY OF SH. M. R. BHAGAT AND SH. RAJENDRA CHOPRA, CA WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CI T(A) WHO WERE THE AUTHORIZED PERSONS AND SOUGHT THE ADJOURNMENT BY SE NDING SH. AMIT KAPOOR, CA WHO WAS NOT HAVING ANY POWER OF ATTORNEY. THEREF ORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS CONSIDERED THAT SH. AMIT KAPOOR, CA FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WA S POINTED OUT THAT NO SUCH WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS FURNISHED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RATHER ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE I MPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE REQUESTED TO RESTORE THE CASE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED T HE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN OUR OPINION, T HE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT AN ADJOURNMENT WAS SO UGHT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THROUGH SH. AMIT KAPOOR, WHO WAS SENT FOR SEEKING T HE ADJOURNMENT AND THAT HE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSE E RATHER SH. M. R. BHAGAT AND SH. RAJDENDRA CHOPRA, CA WERE THE AUTHORIZED RE PRESENTATIVE WHO HAD FILED POWER OF ATTORNEY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THIS FACT REQUIRES VERIFICATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUD ICATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER VERIFYING THE AFORESAID STATED FACTS. ITA NO. 78/ASR./2018 SUTLEJ SERVICE STATION PV T. LTD. 4 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11/01/2019) SD/- SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER V ICE PRESIDENT DATED: 11/01/2019 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR