Shri Raj Kumar Bhalla, Ropar V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 902/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6839 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDER KANTASR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO 902/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI RAJ KUMAR BHALLA, VS. THE ACIT, PROP. M/S BHALLA TRANSPORT CO., CIRCLE 2(1), # 384, ZAIL SINGH NAGAR, CHANDIGARH. ROPAR. PAN NO. ABJPB2660H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH,ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDER KANTA,SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.07.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.09.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2017 OF LD.CIT (APPEALS) AMRITSAR CAMP CHANDIGARH PERTAINING TO 2006-07 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS INCLUDIN G GROUND NO. 1 WHICH READS AS UNDER : THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE WITHOUT AFFORDING A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS ILL EGAL, ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED WHICH MERITS ANNULMENT. 2. RELYING UPON SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED IN ITA 901/201 7, IT WAS REITERATED THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, ON NONE OF THE DATE S, NOTICE FOR THE DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE CLAIM THAT THE HEARING WAS FIXED IS NOT PROVED. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID AS SERTION, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS READY TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT. EVEN OTHE RWISE, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN ORDER RELYING UPON THE DECISIO N OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320. ADDRESSING THE RE ASONS FOR NON-REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T HE HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CATEGORICALLY STATE THAT NO NOTICE FOR THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARI NG HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS READY TO FILE A N AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID ASSERTION. THE LD. AR GAVE HIS ORAL UNDERTAKING TH AT IN CASE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS RESTORED, THE ASSESSEE SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE PRO CEEDINGS. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE ORDER DATED 11.05.2012 OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA 325/CHD/2012 IN THE CASE OF SHRI LOVLESH KUMAR V ITO AND DATED 17.10.2014 IN IT A 699/CHD/2014 IN THE CASE OF M/S SUKHMANI MEGA V ACIT, PATIALA. ITA 902/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. THE LD. SR.DR CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND TH E RECORD, HAD NO OBJECTION IF AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS GRANTED. 3.1 I HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE SOLE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS THE PASSING OF AN EX -PARTE ORDER BY THE LD. CIT(A) DUE TO THE NON ATTENDANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE VARIOUS D ATES OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. AR HAS STATED THAT FOR THE ALLEGED DATES OF HEA RING, NO NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE RECORD, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ORDER WHICH MEETS THE STATUTORY RE QUIREMENT AS SET OUT IN SUB SECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE CIT(A) MANDATE THAT WHILE DECID ING THE APPEAL, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO SET OUT THE POINTS FOR DET ERMINATION AND THE REASONS FOR CONCURRING OR REJECTION OF THE GROUNDS. I FIND THAT CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT OPPORTUNITY SO PROVIDED, IT IS HOPED, IS NOT ABUSED BY THE ASSESSEE AS IN THE EVENTUALITY OF ABUSE OF THE SAME, THE LD. CIT(A) WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS THE SPEAKING ORDER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THUS, IT IS HOPED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN INTEREST MAKES FULL AN D PROPER COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH SEPT., 2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.