MR. SURINDER PAL SINGH,BALTANA vs. ITO, W-3(1), MOHALI

आदेश/ORDER

The present appeals have been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the separate orders dated 29.06.2018 of CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh pertaining to 2009-10 and 2010-11 assessment years wherein the penalty imposed u/s 271B in the respective years has been upheld. At the time of hearing an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee by the ld. AR stating that the complete documents are yet to be received. However, after hearing the ld. Sr.DR and considering the fact that the orders have been passed ex-parte where the assessee remained unrepresented, it was deemed appropriate after hearing the parties to reject the adjournment application and restore the issues back to the file of the CIT(A). 2. The relevant facts qua the issue under consideration are identical in both the years. For ready reference, these are extracted from ITA 1182/CHD/2018 :

“The appeal was fixed for hearing on 23.04.2018, which was not attended. Fresh notice was issued on 12.06.2018 fixing case for 22.06,2018, which also remained unattended. Final opportunity was given for 29.06.2018, All the notices were sent by speed post and duly served on the appellant as per confirmation available on the website of INDIA POST', but nobody attended on these dates. No adjournment application was filed and no written submission was received. Hence, it is presumed that the appellant

ITAs /1182 & 1183/CHD//2018 A.Y.2009-10 & 2010-11 Page 2 of 2

does not want to say anything and the appeal is decided on the basis of material available on record.” 3. It is seen that in the absence of any representation, the penalty order has been upheld. Accordingly, considering the fact that the assessee was agitated qua the grounds raised that the submissions and explanations of the assessee were not considered by the CIT(A). Para 2 of its order suggests that apparently no written submissions were also considered as no written submissions have been advanced on behalf of the assessee and the appeals have been decided considering the reply before the A.O. Accordingly, admittedly the assessee was not heard. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in the interests of substantial justice, the impugned orders are set aside back to the file of the CIT(A) in order to grant the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard. It is hoped that the opportunity so provided to the assessee in good faith is availed of and utilized by the assessee by participating fully and properly by making proper submissions on facts and law before the CIT(A) and the opportunity is not abused. While so restoring, it is made clear that in the eventuality of abuse of the trust reposed, the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an order on the basis of material available on record. 4. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27.02.2019. Sd/- (�दवा �संह ) (DIVA SINGH) �या�यक सद�य/Judicial Member

“पूनम” / Ravi Kumar, PS (Hyderabad) आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant - 1. ��यथ�/ The Respondent - 2. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File 6.

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar