Smt. Usha Sharma, Ludhiana V. DCIT (CPC) , Bengluru

ITA 78/CHANDI/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2767 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KUMAR KHANNA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR CAJLA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) .., ! '# #$ %, & '( BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, J M ./ ITA NO. 78/CHD/2020 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2018-19 SMT. UMA SHARMA, 25, DECENT ENCLAVE, BARWAL, NEAR BARWAL PULLI, LUDHIANA. THE DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU. ./ PAN NO: APNPS4995L / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR CAJLA, ADVOCATE # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KHANNA $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 23.11.2020 '()* ! &/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.11.2020 ')/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 11.11.2019 OF THE CIT(A)-3, LUDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2018-19 ASSESSMENT YEAR. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISE D IN THIS APPEAL : 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. C1T (APPEAL)-3 LUDHIA NA IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CTT (APPEAI)-3 LUDHIANA IS NOT JUS TIFIED IN DECIDING THE CASE EXPARTE WITHOUT SERVICE OF THE NO TICE UPON THE ASSESSEE AT THE PROPER ADDRESS. THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS 25. DECENT ENCLAVE, BARWAL. NEAR BARWAL PULLI LUDHI ANA- 141012. WHEREAS THE NOTICES HAVE PERHAPS BEEN SERVE D AT THE ITA 78/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2018-19 2 OLD ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. AT 74-13. RAJ GURU NAGAR, FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA 3. THAT ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE W ORTHY CIT IS NOT INSTILLED IN DECIDING THE CASE EXPARTE WITHO UT PROVIDING THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. I HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE FIXATION OF THE CASE, THE NON APPEARANCE WAS UNINTENTIONAL AND BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSE E. 4. THE WORTHY CIT IS ERRED IN DECIDING THE MATTER WITH OUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND ADJUDICATING ALL TH E GROUND (S) (GROUND NO.2 & 3) OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BEFORE HER. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF GROUND (S) OF APPEAL BEFORE IT IS FINALLY HEARD. 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L RELATES TO THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITH OUT SERVICE OF THE NOTICE AND WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.09.2018 DECLARING AN INC OME OF RS. 4,59,440/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). THE CPC HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,85,990/- AND DISALLOWED T HE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OF RS. 7,19,248/-. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY PASSING THE EX-PARTE OR DER. 5 NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE , THE ITA 78/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2018-19 3 OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT PROVIDED WHICH I S AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IT WAS FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT THE NOTICES WERE SENT AT THE OLD ADDRESS INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE NEW ADDRESS WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEPARTM ENT. 7. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. SR.DR SUPPORTE D THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITT ED THAT WHENEVER THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE, SO THERE WAS NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO P ASS THE ORDER EX-PARTE. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ALT HOUGH MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSE E THROUGH REGISTERED POST, HOWEVER, NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON REC ORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE NOTICES WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNH EARD AS PER THE MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. WE, THEREFORE , BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA 78/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2018-19 4 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD NOVEMBER,2020. SD/- SD/- #$ % .., (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAIN I) & '(/ JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / VICE PRESIDENT POONAM (+ ! ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ E / CIT 4. $ E ()/ THE CIT(A) 5. -KL M, & M, OPQLR/ DR, I TAT, CHANDIGARH 6. LQ X%/ GUARD FILE