Satnam Singh V. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jalandhar

ITA/258/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Satnam Singh, the appellant, who contested the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding his income assessment for the year 2002-03. Initially, the Assessing Officer assessed his income significantly higher than declared, leading to a tax demand. After partial relief from the CIT(A), both parties appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeals ex parte due to the non-appearance of the appellant's counsel, who had a back problem. The High Court, upon reviewing the circumstances of the non-appearance, decided to set aside the Tribunal's orders and remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 807854 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Limitation Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK SETHI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVISH SOOD
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Condonation of delay; Exparte dismissal; Income Tax
• Section: 144; 139(1); 260A; 5

Judgement Text

"ITA No. 258 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 21528-CII of 2013 & ITA No. 258 of 2013 Date of Decision: 16.9.2014 Satnam Singh ....Appellant. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jalandhar ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Ravish Sood, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. No. 21528-CII of 2013 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 243 days' delay in filing the appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the application which is supported by an affidavit, the delay of 243 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly. ITA No. 258 of 2013 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the GURBACHAN SINGH 2014.10.10 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No. 258 of 2013 -2- orders dated 6.8.2012 (Annexure A-5) and dated 17.4.2013 (Annexure A-6) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), for the assessment year 2002-03, claiming the substantial questions of law as mentioned in para 19 of the appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the appellant filed his original return of income on 16.1.2003 under Section 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year 2002-03 declaring the income at ` 40,000/-. The assessment under Section 144 of the Act in the said case was completed and the Assessing Officer vide order dated 8.12.2009 (Annexure A-1) assessed the income of the assessee at ` 30,40,000/- and accordingly raised a demand of ` 18,63,930/- towards taxes and interest. However, in the last week of December, 2009, the assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Act for the assessment year 2002-03 along with a demand notice was served upon the appellant by way of affixation. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal (Annexure A-2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity, “the CIT(A)”]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure A-3) partly allowed the appeal. Being not satisfied with the order dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure A-3) passed by the CIT(A), the assessee as well as the revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 6.8.2012 (Annexure A-5) exparte dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue. A miscellaneous application filed by the assessee for recall of order dated 6.8.2012 (Annexure A-5) was rejected on 17.4.2013 (Annexure A-6). Hence, the present appeal. GURBACHAN SINGH 2014.10.10 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No. 258 of 2013 -3- 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an application for adjournment was sent on 16.7.2012 as the counsel was not in a position to appear on 18.7.2012, the date fixed in the appeal due to problem in the back whereas the Tribunal has wrongly recorded that no request for adjournment was made. The non-appearance of the counsel on 18.7.2012 was unintentional and beyond his control. It was urged that if the order which was pronounced on 6.8.2012 is not set aside and appeal heard on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee, he would suffer irreparable loss and injury. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the orders passed by the Tribunal. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the reason given for non-appearance of the counsel for the assessee before the Tribunal on the date fixed appears to be unintentional and bonafide. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the orders dated 6.8.2012 (Annexure A-5) and dated 17.4.2013 (Annexure A-6) are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and by passing a speaking order. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 16, 2014 (FATEH DEEP SINGH) gbs JUDGE GURBACHAN SINGH 2014.10.10 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh "