Satish Lackamichand Agarwal, Pune V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 930/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5311 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2018
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO. 930 /P U N/20 16 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 1 1 SHRI SATISH LACKAMICHAND AGARWAL, DARSHAN VILLA, PLOT NO.46, S.NO.35, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, NEAR JADHAV HOSPITAL, KHARADI, PUNE 411014 . / APPELLANT PAN: A DMPA0063C V S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(4), PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI KISHORE PHADKE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A CHAL SHARMA / DATE OF HEARING : 2 5 .0 7 . 201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 2 7 . 0 7 .201 8 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - 3 , PUNE , DATED 01.01.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 AGAINST PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 27 1(1)(C) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) - 3 ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF ITA, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS.13,05,711/ - LEVIED BY LEARNED AO. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) - 3, PUNE ERRED ON FACTS IN NOT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF ITA, 1961. ITA NO. 930 /P U N/20 16 SATISH LACKAMICHAND AGARWAL 2 3. THE ASSESSEE THOUGH HAS RAISED TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES BUT THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED IS V IDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 I.E. AGAINST NON - AFFORDING OF OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY THE CIT(A). 4. WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE SAID ISSUE BEFORE GOING INTO THE MERITS OF ADDITIONS MADE BY AUTHORITIES. 5. THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) REFLECTS THAT THE AP PEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON DIFFERENT DATES. THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 3.3 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER NOTES THAT NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND WERE RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN ANOTHER NOTICE BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE. T HE PERUSAL OF THE APPELLATE ORDER AND THE APPEAL MEMO IN FORM NO.36 REFLECTS THAT THERE IS CHANGE IN ADDRESS OF ASSESSEE AND HENCE, MIS - COMMUNICATION. SINCE THE NOTICES WERE RETURNED, NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON - APPEARANCE ON THE SLATED DATES OF HEARING. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTI CE AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE ISSUE ON MERITS, BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A), WHO SHALL AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING AND COMPLY WITH SAME AND FILE THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THUS, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL ITA NO. 930 /P U N/20 16 SATISH LACKAMICHAND AGARWAL 3 PURPOSES. IN VIEW OF OUR SETTING ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A), WE ARE NOT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE ON MERITS. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF JULY , 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI ) (SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 27 TH JULY , 201 8 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELL ANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) - 3, PUNE ; 4. THE PR.CIT - 2 , PUNE ; 5. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // T RUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE