BALVIR SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/101/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093241202415 October 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the reason provided by the appellant for non-appearance before the ITAT on 18.07.2023, i.e., heavy rains and a yellow alert, appeared to be a valid reason. The Court found that the ITAT ought to have considered this aspect but failed to do so, proceeding ex-parte. Consequently, the High Court set aside the ITAT's order dated 07.08.2023. The Court directed the ITAT to decide the appeal afresh after giving a fair hearing to both parties. The appellant was instructed to present themselves before the ITAT on 20.11.2024, and no further adjournment would be granted. The appellant was also permitted to file all necessary documents and submissions before the concerned date. The appeal was allowed in these terms.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Balvir Singh, filed an appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT passed an ex-parte order on 07.08.2023, dismissing the appeal. The appellant sought to set aside this order, citing heavy rains and a yellow alert in Bathinda on 18.07.2023, which prevented their counsel from appearing. The appellant also sought condonation of a 55-day delay in re-filing certain documents. The Revenue was represented by Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel. The High Court noted that the ITAT had adjourned the case sine die earlier and it was being heard for the first time on 18.07.2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in passing an ex-parte order on 07.08.2023, thereby denying the appellant a fair hearing? (Question of law) 2. Whether the reason provided by the appellant for non-appearance before the ITAT on 18.07.2023, namely heavy rains and a yellow alert, constituted a valid ground for adjournment? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The appellant argued that the ITAT ought to have considered the heavy rains and yellow alert as a valid reason for their counsel's non-appearance. They contended that the adjournment request was not accepted, and the ITAT proceeded ex-parte, ignoring this aspect. The appellant also submitted that they were seeking to file new case laws and documents, and the adjournment application was not accepted on this ground. The appellant further submitted that the appeal had been pending since 07.07.2023 and was being heard for the first time on 18.07.2023. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not contest the appellant's submissions regarding the opportunity of hearing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-101-2024 ( 117-1 IN TH

BALVIR SIN COMMISSIO CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

CM-12490-CI

A appeal is allow Main case 1. Learned the app ITAT, w ITAT w for the request (O&M)

Page 1 of 3 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

NGH Vs. ONER OF INCOME TAX **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALO **** Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standin for the respondent/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) II-2024 Application for condonation of wed and accordingly delay is con d counsel for the appellant has i plication for adjournment move wherein it is stated that the case was adjourned sine die earlier an e first time for 18.07.2023. C ted for adjournment on account o AB AND HARYANA AT RH CM-12490-CII-2024 in/and ITA-101-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.10.2024 . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA OK JAIN h ng Counsel ) delay of 55 days in re-filing of ndoned. invited attention of this Court to ed by the appellant before the e of the assessee pending before nd had been re-fixed for hearing Counsel for the assessee had of heavy rains in Bathinda area,

d ) 4 t t f o e e g d , MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.15 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-101-2024 ( and als docume accepte years. 2. Notice 3. Ms. Ur respond 4. Learned ought to earlier hearing 5. The fa 18.07.2 counsel the said ITAT a appeal 6. We, th 07.08.2 direct t both th on 20.1 (O&M)

Page 2 of 3 so for filing new case laws and ents. However, the adjournme ed by the ITAT on the ground tha of motion. rvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Cou dent/Revenue. d counsel for the appellant subm o have been given to the appella adjourned sine die and had be g on 18.07.2023. act regarding there being heav 2023 appears to be a valid rea l for the appellant, and the Trib d aspect. However, the said as and an order has been passed filed by the assessee himself. herefore, deem it appropriate 2023 passed by the ITAT ex p he ITAT to decide the appeal af he parties. The appellant shall p 11.2024, and no further adjour d English translation of certain ent application has not been at the appeal is pending since 07 unsel accepts notice on behalf of mits that opportunity of hearing ant, more so as the case had been een for the first time fixed for vy rains and yellow alert for ason for non-appearance of the bunal ought to have looked into spect remained ignored by the on 07.08.2023 with regard to to set aside the order dated parte against the appellant, and fresh after giving fair hearing to resent himself before the ITAT rnment shall be allowed to the

n n 7 f g n r r e o e o d d o T e MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.15 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-101-2024 ( appella necessa 7. Appeal 8. All pen

October 15, 20 Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe (O&M)

Page 3 of 3 ant. The appellant would also be ary submissions before the conce l stands disposed of in aforesaid t nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ 024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y e free to file all documents and erned date. terms. posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(ALOK JAIN) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.15 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →