Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 23.01.2019 passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar in respect of the Assessment Year 2009-10, wherein the assessee has challenged the order passed u/s 263 ex-parte qua the assessee vide para 2 by observing as under:
2 Gurmail Dass Siddhar v. Pr. CIT “2. The above mentioned show cause notice was sent by Registered Post on 25.10.2018 and also served through affixture on 13.11.2018. On the fixed date, neither assessee nor her authorized representative attended the office nor filed any written reply in response to the show cause notice. However, on 17.12.2018, Shri J.S. Bhasin, Advocate attended the office and stated that he has been asked by the assessee to seek adjournment and he will be furnishing the proper Power of Attorney from the assessee on the next date. On his request, the case was adjourned to 07.01.2019. But, on 07.01.2019, nobody attended the office nor any written reply was received. In the interest of natural justice, another opportunity letter was issued to the assessee on 10.01.2019 fixing the case for hearing on 21.01.2019. Again on the fixed date, neither anybody attended the office nor any written reply was received.
At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. Pr. CIT has merely mentioned that the assessee has failed to furnish any reply/response to the show cause notice issued by this office despite given enough opportunities as discussed is factually incorrect. Sh. J. S. Bhasin has contended that he himself on 17.12.2018 before the ld. Pr. CIT and discuss the case and sought adjournments were furnished proper Power of Attorney to present the case on behalf of assessee. He further submitted that the ld. Pr. CIT has only mentioned the date of another opportunity letter was issued on 10.01.2019 fixing the case for hearing on 21.01.2019 but he did not mention the factum of service of the notice on the appellant assessee. The Pr. CIT has concluded merely stating that assessee has nothing to say in the matter. The counsel argues that the Pr. CIT decision, in the absence of granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and without taking its rebuttal in the present its case amount to gross violation of principles of natural justice. He requested that the matter may be remanded back to the office of the Pr. CIT to re-adjudicate the matter afresh after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
3 Gurmail Dass Siddhar v. Pr. CIT
The ld. DR although stands by the impugned order but he has no objection to the request of the assessee.
Having heard the rival submissions and considering the facts of the case that the assessee has been denied sufficient opportunity of being heard to present its case in compliance to the show cause notice dated 25.02.2019 by the Pr. CIT and passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee. We are of the considered opinion that the matter is required to be send back to the ld. Pr. CIT to examine the matter afresh, after considering the submissions of the assessee shall be filed in the fresh proceedings and affording adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the Pr. CIT. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.05.2022.