Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar
Shri Amar Nath Choudhry, Jammu vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 4 February, 2021
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR
(CAMP BENCH AT JAMMU)
BEFORE: MR. JUSTICE P. P. BHATT, HON'BLE PRESIDENT
& SHRI G.S. PANNU,
PANNU, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT
WTA No.02/ASR/2019
Assessment Year : 2007
2007-
07-08
Shri Amar Nath Choudhary, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Kothi No.3, Akhnoor Road, Income Tax (Wealth Tax Officer),
Jammu. Circle-
Circle-2, Jammu.
PAN : AAMPC7872J.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Subhash Dutt, Advocate.
Respondent by : Shri M.P. Singh, CIT-DR.
Date of hearing : 04.02.2021
Date of pronouncement : 04.02.2021
ORDER
PER JUSTICE P.P. BHATT, PRESIDENT :
This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 is directed against the order of learned CWT(A), Jammu dated 10th April, 2019.
2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that there is a delay of two days in filing of appeal, which is attributable to postal delay. In the absence of any challenge to the bonafides of the submission made by the learned counsel, the delay is condoned. The said decision was announced in the presence of the parties and thereafter, both sides have addressed the matter on merits.
2 WTA-02/ASR/2019
3. In this case, the substantive grievance of the assessee is that the learned CWT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal in an ex-parte manner.
4. At the time of hearing, the learned representative for the assessee pointed out that the learned CWT(A) has passed the impugned order confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act in an ex-parte manner, which is inconsistent with the provisions of law. It has been pointed out that learned CWT(A) has not addressed any of the points of the assessee with respect to the merit of the issue but has dismissed the appeal merely on the ground that none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even with regard to the non-appearance, the learned representative pointed out that the appeal proceedings in the penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act have been proceeded with by the learned CWT(A) whereas the corresponding quantum assessment proceedings are still pending at the level of CWT(A). A reference has been made to page 6 of the Paper Book to point out that the notice of hearing in the quantum appeal of the assessee has now been issued fixing the case for 19th February, 2021. It was, therefore, pointed out that there was no justification for the CWT(A) to have passed the impugned order hurriedly in the absence of the assessee.
5. The learned CIT-DR did not controvert the factual matrix pointed out by the learned representative but merely relied upon the order of learned CWT(A).
6. Having considered the rival submissions, it is quite discernible that the approach of the learned CWT(A) in disposing of the impugned appeal is contrary to the obligations cast upon him under the Act. Without going into the issue as to whether non-appearance of the assessee before the learned CWT(A) was for justifiable reasons or not, 3 WTA-02/ASR/2019 it is quite clear that the CWT(A), while disposing of appeal, is obligated to state the points for determination and the decision thereon and the reasons for arriving at such decision. The impugned order of CWT(A) is quite conspicuous by the absence of such an approach inasmuch as the disputed issues have neither been identified and nor the determination is based on any reasoning. Therefore, on this aspect of the matter itself, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned CWT(A). We hold so.
7. As a consequence, the impugned order of learned CWT(A) is set aside and the matter remanded back to the file of the CWT(A) to be decided afresh in accordance with law. Needless to mention, our action of setting aside the impugned order and restoring the matter back is not a reflection on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the learned CWT(A) as per law.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above.
Above decision was announced on conclusion of hearing in the presence of both the parties on 4th February, 2021.
Sd/- Sd/-
(G.S. PANNU) (JUSTICE P.P. BHATT)
VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR, ITAT
By Order
Assistant Registrar