Ita/268/2013 Of M/S Ram Dass Kapoor v. Comm. Of Income Tax Aayakar Bhawan Rishi Nagar Ludhiana

ITA No. 268 of 2013 =|. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 2160/-Cll of 2013 andIIA No. 268 of 2013 Date of Decision: 258.7014 | M/s Ram Dass Kapoor Transport, Ludhiana ...Appellant. 4#.&1& Commissioner of Income lax, Ludhiana ... Respondent CORAM:-HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON BLE MR. JUSTICE FATER DEEP SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. CM No. 2160/Cll of 2013 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Actfor condonation of 98 days’ delay in filing the appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusingthe application which Is supported by an affidavit, the delay of 98 days’ infiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly. ITA No. 268 of 2013 1.This appeal has been preferred by the assessee undersection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act’) against theorder dated 13.12.2012 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’, Chandigarh (hereinafter ITA No. 268 of 2013=2= referred to as the I[ribunal) in ITA No. 218/CHD/2011 for theassessment year 2007-08 claiming the following substantial questions oflaw:- Whether under the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the ITAT was justified in disposing offthe statutory appeal vide order dated13.12.2012 while rejecting application filed bythe counsel for adjournment on medicalgrounds thereby confirming the order ofauthorities below without appreciating the factsand evidence on record in its true letter andspirits and thereby denying opportunity ofnearing? VVnetner under the facts and circumstances othe case, the ITAT was justified in disposing offthe Misc. Application vide order dated10.06.2013 thereby dismissing the prayer forrecalling the original order for hearing andadjudicating the issue at the stage of prayer forrecall itself thus depriving the appellant fromopportunity of hearing? Whether under the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Impugned order passed by IIATbeing devoid of proper appreciation of facts,evidences and well settled law Is perverse anddeserves to be set aside? Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance made by ITAT andautnorities below in the case of trade creaitorsaeserves to be deleted? VV Whether the finding of the Tribunal is perverseon facts and its opinion is unsustainable in lawand the order of the Tribunal is_ legallyunsustainable and bad in law and tne ITA! nasmisdirected itself In being Influenced byIrrelevant factors and applying erroneouscriteria wnile deciding the issue under Incomeon facts and its opinion is unsustainable in lawand the order of the Tribunal is_ legallyunsustainable and bad in law and tne ITA! nasmisdirected itself In being Influenced byIrrelevant factors and applying erroneouscriteria wnile deciding the issue under Income Tax Act, 1961? 2.The facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal asnarrated therein may be noticed. [Ihe assessee is engaged intransportation and LPG Bulk Carrier and filea its return for theassessment year 2007-08 on 30.10.2007 at an income ot 45,53,316/-.The said return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act andtaken up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 29.12.2009(Annexure A-1) made disallowanceot |L14,32,29//- in the hands of theassessee firm. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who vide order dated29.12.2010 (Annexure A-2) partly allowed the appeal. Still not satisfied,the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide orderdated 13.12.2012 (Annexure A-3) dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, theassessee filed an application under Section 254 of the Act forrectification of the order (Annexure A-3). The Tribunal vide order dated10.6.2013 (Annexure A-4) dismissed the said application. Hence, thepresent appeal. ITA No. 268 of 2013=4. ITA No. 268 of 2013=4. 3)Learned counsel for the assessee suodmittead tnat on09.12.2012, the counsel before the Iribunal was suffering from fever anapplication for aqjournment was filea. However, the Iribunal vide order13.12.2012 decided the matter exparte against the assessee. Learnedcounsel further submitted that the assessee had a good prima facie caseon merits and prayed that the [ribunal be directed to decide the matteron merits after nearing the assessee or Its counsel, 4 On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenuesupported the order passed by the I[ribunal. 5 The counsel for the appellant was suffering from fever andhad prayed for adjournment on that count. In such circumstances, theprayer for adjournment could not be held to be unjustified. In view of thefacts and circumstances of the case and In the Interest of justice, theorder dated 13.12.2012 (Annexure A-3) as well as order dated 17.95.201(Annexure A-4) passed by the Iribunal are set aside. Ihe matter Isremanded to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh in accordance withlaw after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 25, 2014 <>& (FATEH DEEP SINGH) JUDGE