Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Balraj Singla Eduational Society, ... vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 18 May, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 796/CHD/2015
Assessment year: 2014-15
M/s Balraj Singla, Vs. The Chief Commissioner of
Educational Society, Income Tax,
Suniar Basti, Ward No.5, Ludhiana.
Patran. Distt. Patiala.
PAN No. AAAAB7941G
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : Shri Rakesh Cajla
Respondent By : Shri Ravi Sarangal, CIT-DR
Date of hearing : 27.04.2017
Date of Pronouncement : 18.05.2017
ORDER
PER MS. DIVA SINGH,JM The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 23.09.2015 on application under section 10(23C)(vi) of ld. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana.
2. At the time of hearing, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the Revenue seeking time. However, the said adjournment was objected to by the ld. AR stating that the impugned order is an ex-parte order and in the peculiar facts of the present case, his limited request would be that the issue be remanded back to the file of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana for re-adjudicating the issue after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The said prayer, it was submitted, was supported by ground No. 2 and 2.1 filed in the present appeal. The said grounds are reproduced hereunder :
"2. That the Ld. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Ludhiana is not justified in deciding the case exparte without going into the merits of the case. The Rule of "Audi Alterm Partam" i.e. no man should be condemned unheard has completely been ignored. 2.1 That only one notice was issued to the appellant and the office could not be attended by the representative due to his ill health".
3. Considering the request, the CIT-DR Mr. Ravi Sarangal, present in the Court was required to go through the record. Accordingly, a pass over 2 was given. In the second round, the ld. AR was required to address the facts. The ld. AR submitted that before the passing of the order, only one opportunity was given by the ld. Chief CIT, Ludhiana i.e. on 10.09.2015. As per record, it was submitted notice dated 04.09.2015 was stated to have been issued. The said notice, it was submitted, had been received after the date of hearing. Accordingly, the impugned order having been passed without hearing the assessee, it was submitted, may be recalled. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the adjournment sought by Revenue was rejected and the appeal was argued by CIT-DR Mr. R.Sarangal present in the Court. The ld. AR addressing the facts of the case, drew attention to the fact that the application was filed on 29.04.2014. The accounts of the assessee are subject to audit and by over-sight, the audit report was submitted in Form No. 10B instead of Form No. 10BB of the Act. The application in the facts of the present case, it was submitted has been filed before the ITO, Patiala. Thereafter, it was transferred administratively to Chandigarh and then transferred to Ludhiana and at none of these stages, any clerical or typographical mistake was pointed out.
4. The ld. CIT-DR, considering the brief Paper Book filed in the present appeal, submitted that as per the statement of the assessee that the audit report for the financial year 31.03.2012, 31.03.2013 and 31.03.2014 were enclosed alongwith the application filed to the ITO, Ward-3, Patiala as is evident from pages 7 and 8 of the Paper Book. Accordingly, it was his submission that he would have no objection if the issue is restored in order to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the light of the submissions of the parties before the Bench, we are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order cannot be upheld. Right to be heard is an important right to which the assessee is entitled to. The impugned order having been passed exparte giving only one opportunity and that also not an effective opportunity as the time gap between issuance of notice and date of hearing should have been reasonable. Even otherwise, the order having been passed on 23.09.2015 evidently demonstrates that the assessee could have been provided another opportunity. Accordingly, in view of the above, the impugned order is set aside back to the file of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana with the direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a 3 reasonable opportunity of being heard. Said order was pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself.
6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18th May,2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
'Poonam'
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT
4. The CI T(A)
5. The DR
Asstt. Registrar
ITAT,Chandigarh.