Ita/258/2013 Of Satnam Singh v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Jalandhar

ITA No. 258 of 2013 =|. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 21528-Cll of 2013 &IIA No. 258 of 2013 Date of Decision: 16.9.72014 | satnam Singh. ...Appellant. 0!1$2$ Commissioner of Income lax-ll, Jalandnar ... Respondent CORAM:-HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON BLE MR. JUSTICE FATER DEEP SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Ravish Sood, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. No. 21528Cll of 2013 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Actfor condonation of 243 days’ delay in filing the appeal. The application Issupported by an affidavit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusingthe application which is supported by an affidavit, the delay of 243 daysin filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly. ITA No. 258 of 2013 1.This appeal has been preferred by the assessee undersection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act’) against the ITA No. 258 of 2013=2= orders dated 6.8.2012 (Annexure A-5) and dated 17.4.2013 (AnnexureA-6) passed by the Income lax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench,Amritsar (nereinatter referred to as ‘the Iribunal), for the assessmentyear 2002-03, claiming the substantial questions of law as mentioned inpara 19 of the appeal. 2.The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the presentappeal as narrated therein are that the appellant filed his original returnof Income on 16.1.2003 under Section 139(1) of the Act for theassessment year 2002-03 declaring the income at.L40,000/-. Theassessment under Section 144 of tne Act In tne said case wascompleted and the Assessing Officer vide order dated 38.12.2009(Annexure A-1) assessed the Income of the assessee at 430,40,000/-and accordingly raised a demand of.L18,63,930/- towards taxes andinterest. However, in the last week of December, 2009, the assessmentorder passed under Section 144 of the Act for the assessment year2002-03 along with a demand notice was served upon the appellant byway of affixation. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal(Annexure A-2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [forbrevity, “the CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 15.11.2010(Annexure A-3) partly allowed the appeal. Being not satisfied with theorder dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure A-3) passed by the CIT(A), theassessee as well as the revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal. TheTribunal vide order dated 6.8.2012 (Annexure A-5) exparte dismissedthe appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue. A miscellaneousapplication filed by the assessee for recall of order dated 6.8.2012(Annexure A-5) was rejected on 17.4.2013 (Annexure A-6). Hence, thepresent appeal. ITA No. 258 of 2013 a 3.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that anapplication for adjournment was sent on 16./7.2012 as the counsel wanot in a position to appear on 18.7.2012, the date fixed In the appeal dueto problem in tne back wnereas the Iribunal nas wrongly recorded thatno request for adjournment was made. The non-appearance of thecounsel on 18./7.2012 was unintentional and beyond his control. It wasurged that if the order which was pronounced on 6.8.2012 Is not setaside and appeal neard on merits after affording opportunity of hearingto the assessee, ne would suffer irreparable loss and Injury. 4On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentsupported the orders passed by the [ribunal. 5After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusingthe record, the reason given for non-appearance of tne counsel for theassessee before the Iribunal on the aate fixed appears to beunintentional and bonafide. Accordingly, in the Interest of justice, theorders dated 6.8.2012 (Annexure A-5) and dated 17.4.2013 (AnnexureA-6) are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide thesame afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity ofnearing to the concerned parties and by passing a speaking order, (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 4On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentsupported the orders passed by the [ribunal. 5After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusingthe record, the reason given for non-appearance of tne counsel for theassessee before the Iribunal on the aate fixed appears to beunintentional and bonafide. Accordingly, in the Interest of justice, theorders dated 6.8.2012 (Annexure A-5) and dated 17.4.2013 (AnnexureA-6) are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide thesame afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity ofnearing to the concerned parties and by passing a speaking order, (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 16, 2014(FATEH DEEP SINGH) ,;$ JUDGE