Sh. Nitin Chopra, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 921/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6709 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 921/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SHRI NITIN CHOPRA, VS. THE ACIT, PROPRIETOR OF HANDA & CHOPRA, CIRCLE 2(1),. PLOT NO. 75, INDL. AREA, CHANDIGARH. PHASE-2, CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. ADBPC7928D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VINEET KRISHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 26.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2017 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH,JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 03/03/2017 OF CIT(A) 2 AMRITSAR AT CHANDIGARH PERTAINING TO 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDE R SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS. 16,83,6 04/- CHALLENGED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS CONFIRMED IN AN EX-PARTE ORDER IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ON THE DATES OF HEARING THE APPEAL WAS FIXED , THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. INVITING ATTENTION TO THE FA CTS AS SET OUT IN GROUND NO. 1 AND 2, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTIC ES WERE SENT TO SHRI NITIN CHOPRA, SCO 52-53, SECSTOR 17-A, CHANDIGARH I NSTEAD OF THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE PAN. INVITING ATTENTION TO THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO. 10, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CO RRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS; SHRI NITIN CHOPRA, PROPRIETOR OF HANDA & CHOPRA, PL OT NO. 75, INDL AREA, PHASE-2, CHANDIGARH. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE IMPUGNED ORD ER BE SET ASIDE IN ORDER TO AFFORD THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SUBMITTED, HAS BEEN DISMISSED REL YING UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M ULTIPLAN INDIA ITA 921/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 2 PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. 3. CONSIDERING THE RECORD, THE SAID REQUEST WAS NOT OPP OSED TO BY THE LD. SR.DR. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A CONSIDERATION THEREOF WE FIND THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UN REPRESENTED FOR REASONS BEYOND ITS CONTROL. APART FROM THAT IT IS NOTE D THAT THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE EVEN OTHERWISE CANNOT BE UPHELD AS IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AS SET OUT IN SUB- SECT ION (6) OF SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ACCORDINGLY, ACCEPTING THE ORAL UN DERTAKING OF LD. AR , THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES.. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST OCTOBER2017. SD/- SD/- ( B.R.R.KUMAR) (DI VA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 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.