Dr. Jaswinder Singh through GPA Smt. Jagjiwan Kaur, Ropar V. ITO, W-2(2), Ropar

ITA 824/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2761 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANVEET SINGH SEHGAL CI T
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reassessment proceedings; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 40(a)(ia); 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCHES, SMC CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) .., ! BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.824/CHD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 DR. JASWINDER SINGH, THROUGH GPA SMT. JAGJIWAN KAUR SCF: 76-77, BEANT SINGH AMAN NAGAR, ROPAR THE ITO WARD 2(2), ROPAR PAN NO: AGPPS0593R APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJMOHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE #!' REVENUE BY : SHRI MANVEET SINGH SEHGAL, ADDL. CI T $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 21/10/2021 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/10/2021 '#/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 28/02/2019 OF LD. CIT(A)-1, CHANDIGARH. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L. 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN LAW IN PASSING AN EX-PARTE ORDER WHICH IS AGAINS T THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS ARB ITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADD ITION OF RS. 3,81,134/- AND RS. 37,560,/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALL EGED NON 2 DEDUCTION OF TDS APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON INSTR UMENTS & HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT, FURNITURE & FIXTURES, OFFICE EQUIPMENT, COMPUTER AND REFRIGERATOR AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS ARBITR ARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS, ARBI TRARY, OPPOSED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THUS UNTENABLE . 3. VIDE GROUND NO. 1 THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSE SSEE RELATES TO THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 627613/- AND THE A.O. FR AMED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT ON 14/12/20 09 ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME. LATER ON THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) WERE INI TIATED BY ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE A.O. FRAMED THE A SSESSMENT BY PASSING THE EXPARTE ORDER AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,86,27 7/-. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY PASSING THE EXPARTE ORDER AND ALLOWED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO N OTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THE A.O. PASSED T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER EXPARTE WITHOUT PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HE REQUESTED TO REMAND THIS MATTER BA CK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3 8. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUP PORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THEIR RESPECTIVE O RDERS EXPARTE. LD. CIT(A) ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS RETURNED BY POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH REMARKS LEFT WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSE. THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED UPO N THE ASSESSEE. I THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS DEEM IT APPRO PRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO BE ADJUDICATE AFRES H IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/10/2021 ) SD/- .., ( N.K. SAINI) ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 21/10/2021 (+! ,-.- 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