← Back to search

A V JEWELLERS,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH, AAYAKAR BHAWAN

PDF
ITA 352/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 March 20263 pages

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.02.2026Pronounced: 17.03.2026

PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 14.01.2025 passed for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the very outset submitted that impugned order has been passed ex-parte by the ld.CIT (Appeals), hence not sustainable. A.Y.2017-18 2

3.

The ld. DR, on the other hand submitted that ld.CIT (Appeals) has issued notices which were not complied with by the assessee, therefore, no fault can be attributed to the impugned order. 4. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the finding of the ld.CIT (Appeals) in paragraph No. 5.3 would reveal that ld.CIT (Appeals) has issued four notices, namely 26.03.2021, 10.02.2024, 15.10.2024 and 11.01.2025. We are of the view that these notices do not indicate the specific date by which appeal was fixed for hearing. There is a huge gap of three years in the first two notices. Then, there is a gap of roughly 8 months between second and third notice and a gap of three months in the last alleged notice. It is difficult for an assessee to keep a coherence of date of hearing in this manner. Apart from the above, we are of the view that punishment in the shape of tax liability on an addition of Rs.47,76,672/- is far disproportionate than any negligence, if attributed to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, assessee deserves one more chance. A.Y.2017-18 3

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the ld.CIT
(Appeals) and restore all these issues to the file of ld.CIT
(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after granting due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 17.03.2026. (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL)
VICE PRESIDENT

“Poonam”

आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :

1.

अपीलाथᱮ/ The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ/ CIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च᭛डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/ Guard File

सहायक पंजीकार/

A V JEWELLERS,CHANDIGARH vs ITO, CHANDIGARH, AAYAKAR BHAWAN | BharatTax