VTL Investments Ltd., Ludhiana V. Addl. CIT, Chandigarh

ITA 783/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73451 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBHASH AGGARWAL; VINEET J AIN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 783/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 VTL INVESTMENTS LTD VS. ADDL CIT LUDHIANA RAGE II, CHANDIGARH AABCV 7449 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY S/SHRI SUBHASH AGGARWAL & VINEET J AIN RESPONDENT BY: SHRI J.S. NAGAR DATE OF HEARING 27.1.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 .1.2014 O R D E R PER T.R.SOOD, A.M THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1.4 .2013 OF THE LD CIT(A), CHANDIGARH. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1 THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), CHANDIG ARH IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2 THAT THE LD. CIT(A), CHANDIGARH HAS ERRED IN DISP OSING OFF THE APPEAL WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY HEARING TO THE APP ELLANT. 3 THAT THE LD. CIT(A),CHANDIGARH HAS ERRED IN STATI NG THAT THE HEARING WAS FIXED FOR 25.3.2013 AND THAT NOBODY ATT ENDED ON THAT DATE, IN FACT NO INTIMATION OF FIXING THE HEARING FOR 25.3.2013 WAS SERVED AND THUS THE LD. CIT(A), CHANDIGARH HAS ERRE D IN PASSING THE EX-PARTE ORDER. 4 THAT THE LD. CIT(A), CHANDIGARH HAS ERRED IN UPHO LDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7 ,01,423/- ON THE GROUND THAT H E LOAN(S) WERE ADVANCED WITHOUT INTEREST WHEREAS INTEREST HAD DULY BEEN CHARGED ON THE ALLEGED LOANS AND THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE. 3 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT I N THIS CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE WITHO UT GIVING EFFECTIVE HEARING. THE CASE WAS FIXED ON 12.2.2013 AND FOR WHICH APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED. THERE AFTER THE 2 CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 25.3.2013 BUT NO NOTI CE WAS SERVED FOR THE SAME THAT IS WHY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER IT IS NO T CLEAR WHETHER THE NOTICE WAS SERVED FOR 25.3.2013 OR NOT? THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD ALSO COOPERATE WITH APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. 6 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.1.2014 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29.1.2014 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR