SUKHJIT SINGH vs. CIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN SEC 17 CHD

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 23.5.2013 (Annexure A-5) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B', Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), for the assessment year 2005-06, claiming the substantial questions of law as mentioned in para 11 of the appeal.

A few facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the appellant who is an individual filed his return of income on 5.8.2005 for the assessment year 2005-06 declaring income at ` 1,03,500/- and agricultural income at ` 3,75,00/-. The said return was processed under Section 144 of the Act. The assessment GURBACHAN SINGH 2014.10.10 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh -2- was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure A-1) by making an addition of ` 17,19,000/- on account of cash deposit in Citi Bank, Chandigarh. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short “the CIT(A)”]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 13.3.2009 (Annexure A- 2) dismissed the appeal. Being dissatisfied with the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure A-3) allowed the appeal and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the CIT(A). The revenue challenged the order dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure A-3) before this Court by way of ITA No. 626 of 2010. This Court vide order dated 16.2.2011 (Annexure A-4) allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Tribunal to proceed afresh in accordance with law. As per order of the Tribunal, the written submissions on behalf of the assessee were filed on 27.8.2012 and the matter thereafter was adjourned to 28.8.2012 and then to 6.11.2012. However, the Tribunal on 20.5.2013 heard the case exparte and pronounced the order on 23.5.2013 (Annexure A-5) whereby it confirmed the addition made by the authorities and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee filed an application for recalling the order dated 23.5.2013 (Annexure A-5) which was also rejected vide order dated 26.8.2013 (Annexure A-6). Hence, the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on 6.11.2012 and 27.2.2013, the Bench did not function and the matter was adjourned. On 20.5.2013, none had appeared on behalf of the assessee as no notice was issued for hearing of the case. Accordingly, the Tribunal after hearing the case exparte on 20.5.2013, which was GURBACHAN SINGH 2014.10.10 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh -3- pronounced on 23.5.2013 (Annexure A-5), dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was urged that the non-appearance on 20.5.2013 was unintentional.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the orders passed by the Tribunal.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the reason for non-appearance of the counsel for the assessee before the Tribunal on 20.5.2013 appears to be unintentional and bonafide. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the orders dated 23.5.2013 (Annexure A-5) and dated 26.8.2013 (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 parties and by passing a speaking order. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 18, 2014 (FATEH DEEP SINGH) gbs JUDGE GURBACHAN SINGH 2014.10.10 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh