Smt. Monika W/o Sh. Vijay Singh, Sirsa V. ITO, W-3, Sirsa

ITA 924/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1212 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2021
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KHANNA CIT
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Set aside
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH !, ' # $ , $ % & ' ( ) , *+ # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM /. ITA NO. 924/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 SMT. MONIKA, W/O SHRI VIJAY SINGH, VILLAGE MEHNA KHERA, TEHSIL, DISTT. SIRSA. VS THE ITO, WARD-3, SIRSA. ./ PAN NO: CZHPM7889P / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT & ./ ITA NO. 925/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 SMT. URMILA DEVI W/O SHRI RAJBIR, VILLAGE ARNIANWALI, DISTT. SIRSA. VS THE ITO, WARD-3, SIRSA. ./ PAN NO: AFHPU0369L / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI LALIT MOHAN, C.A. # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHOK KHANNA, ADDL.CIT $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 06.07.2021 '()* ! &/ D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.07.2021 HEARING CONDUCTED VIA WEBEX *,/ ORDER PER BENCH IN BOTH THESE APPEALS THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSES CHALL ENGE THE EX-PARTE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT, HISSAR PERTA INING TO ITA-924&925/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-2011 PAGE 2 OF 5 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEARS DATED 29 TH MARCH 2019 AND 21 ST FEBRUARY 2019 RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS A COMMON STAND O F THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH THAT SINCE THE FACTS, CIRC UMSTANCES AND SUBMISSIONS IN THE RESPECTIVE CASES REMAIN IDEN TICAL, ACCORDINGLY, THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED IN ITA-925/CH D/2019 WOULD ADDRESS THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED IN ITA- 924/CHD/2019. 2. IN THE SAID BACKGROUND THE LD.AR DREW ATTENTION TO THE GROUND 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPE ALS. THE SAID GROUND IS REPRODUCED FROM ITA 925/CHD/2019 AS UNDER : 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISPOSING OFF THE APPEA L EX-PARTEE WITHOUT GRANTING ANY FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 2.1 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE APPELLANT FOR NOT CAUSING APPEARANCE ON THE DATES FIXED FOR HEARING AND AS SU CH DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL WITHOUT GRANTING FAIR, MEANINGFUL AND PROPER OPPORT UNITY IS UNTENABLE 2.2 THAT EVEN OTHERWISE4, AN ORDER PASSED IN LIMI NI WITHOUT EFFECTIVELY DISPOSING OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS IN INFRACTION OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH, ORDER SO MADE IS OTHERWISE TOO ILLEGAL, INVALID AND A VITIATED ORDER. 3. INVITING ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE O F CIT VERSUS MULTIPLAN 38 ITD (DEL) 320 AMONGST OTHERS AND HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINI.IT WAS HIS SU BMISSION THAT THE SAID ORDER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUT ORY MANDATE ITA-924&925/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-2011 PAGE 3 OF 5 AS SET OUT IN SECTION 250 [6] OF THE ACT. ACCORDING LY, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE SO AS TO AFFORD THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4. THE LD.AR WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AS SET OUT I N PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND EXPLAIN WHY THEY HAD NOT BEE N AVAILED OF. IN REPLY IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE ASSES SEE HAVING APPOINTED A C.A. TO REPRESENT HER, REMAINED CONFIDE NT THAT ALL THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE WAS BEING DONE. IT WAS ELABORATED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A HOUSEWIFE REMAINED CONFID ENT THAT SHE WAS BEING REPRESENTED BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY BY HER C.A. 5. FACTS AND ARGUMENTS REMAIN IDENTICAL IN BOTH TH E APPEALS. HENCE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS HIS LIM ITED PRAYER THAT THE APPEALS MAY BE REMANDED BACK ACCEPTING HIS ORAL UNDERTAKING THAT THE ASSESSES SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS. 6. THE SAID REQUEST ON A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WAS NOT OPPOSED BY THE LD DR. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD IT IS SEEN THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW AS THE APPEALS OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSES HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ITA-924&925/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-2011 PAGE 4 OF 5 IN LIMINE AND NOT BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER AS IS THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, HENCE, THE ORDERS ARE UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IT IS EVEN OTHERWISE SEEN THAT AS FAR AS THE RESPECTIVE A SSESSEES ARE CONCERNED, THAT AFTER HAVING APPOINTED C.A. MR ASHO K SINGHAL WHOSE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN NOTICED BY THE CIT(A) I N PARA3 OF THE ORDER, THE BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEES SHALL BE R EPRESENTED IS WELL FOUNDED. ACCORDINGLY, IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THIS STATUTORY DEFICIT IN THE ORDER AND IN THE INTERESTS OF SUBSTA NTIAL JUSTICE, IT IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER BACK TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE IN I TS OWN INTERESTS IS DIRECTED TO ENSURE FULL AND FAIR PARTI CIPATION BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY AS FAILING WHICH IT IS MADE CLEA R THAT THE CIT(A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS AN ORDER IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW. 8. SINCE IN ITA 924/CHD/2019 THERE IS NO DISTINCTIO N ON FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND SUBMISSIONS. THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ACCORDINGLY IS IDENTICALLY SET ASIDE AS BEING UNSUS TAINABLE IN LAW SINCE IT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREM ENTS OF SUB- SECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 AND EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSEE HAVING APPOINTED A COUNSEL CANNOT BE FAULTED FOR LACK OF PROPER REPRESENTATION BEFORE TH E SAID AUTHORITY. THUS, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE IN TH E LIGHT OF THE ITA-924&925/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-2011 PAGE 5 OF 5 ORDER AS SET OUT IN ITA 925/CHD/2019, THE IMPUGNED ORDER HEREIN IS ALSO SET ASIDE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CI T(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN INTERESTS IS DIRECTED TO ENSURE FULL AND PROPER REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY FAI LING WHICH, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE CIT(A) SHALL BE AT LIBERT Y TO PASS AN ORDER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AT THE TIME OF VIRTUAL HEARING ITSEL F IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES VIA WEBEX. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 9 TH JULY,2021. SD/- SD/- ( % & ' ( ) ) ( ! ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SINGH) *+ #/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' #/ JUDICIAL MEMBER + (, ! -. /. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ 0 / CIT 4. $ 0 ()/ THE CIT(A) 5. .34 5, & 5, 7894:/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 49 ;%/ GUARD FILE (, $ / BY ORDER, < #/ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR