Smt. Anita Mittal, Panchkula v. DCIT, Circle, Panchkula

ITA 1356/CHANDI/2018 | 2012-2013
Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 135621514 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN AFSPM4365D
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 1356/CHANDI/2018
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Anita Mittal, Panchkula
Respondent DCIT, Circle, Panchkula
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 07-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 02-05-2019
First Hearing Date 11-09-2019
Assessment Year 2012-2013
Appeal Filed On 31-10-2018
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1356/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SMT. ANITA MITTAL H.NO. 141 SECTOR 9 PANCHKULA VS. THE DCIT PANCHKULA CIRCLE PANCHKULA ./PAN NO. AFSPM4365D / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ! /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SACHIN JAIN ' ! / REVENUE BY : SH. M.P. DWIVEDI JCIT # $ % /DATE OF HEARING : 07.11.2019 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.11.2019 / ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.4.2016 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)-2 GURGAON [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT GIV ING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WHICH IS AGAINST THE NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE CASE BE SET ASIDE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISS ING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. ITA NO. 1356-CHD-2018- SMT. ANITA MITTAL PANCHKULA 2 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ING THE AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 60 916/-. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES WHERE THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH EXPENSES IS NOT IN DISPUTE. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES WHERE INCURRENCE OF SUCH EXPENSES IS WITH REGARD TO THE BUSINESS IS NOT IN DISPUTE. 6. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL; THE APPELLANT DISPUTES THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION DELETION OR AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 3. AS PER RECORD THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TIM E BARRED BY 882 DAYS. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THERE IS NO DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. A SEPARATE AFFIDAVIT DATED 7.10.201 9 HAS BEEN FILED WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE IS REPRODUCE D AS UNDER:- AFFIDAVIT AFFIDAVIT AFFIDAVIT AFFIDAVIT I ANITA MITTAL (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS ASSESSEE) W/O SH. RAMESH MITTAL R/O H. NO. 141 SECTOR - 9 PANCHKULA HARYANA DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND DECLARE AS UNDER: - 1. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHIFTED HER RESIDENCE FROM H. NO. 515 SECTOR - 16 PANCHKULA TO HOUSE NO. 141 SECTOR - 9 PANCHKULA IN THE FIRST WEEK OF APR IL 2016. ITA NO. 1356-CHD-2018- SMT. ANITA MITTAL PANCHKULA 3 2. THAT THE NOTICE DATED 04.04.2016 FOR FIXATION OF APPEAL FOR HEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) ON 18.04.2016 WAS SENT BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON THE OLD ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. AT H. NO. 515 SECTOR - 16 PANCHKULA AND THUS COULD NOT BE RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE 25.04.2016. 3. THAT THE FACT OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS WAS DULY BROUGHT TO THE KIND NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT (A) VIDE LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 25.04.2016. 4. THAT IT APPEARS TO THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORIGINA L ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) WAS ALSO DISPATCHED TO THE OLD ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. AT H. NO. 515 SECTOR - 16 PANCHKULA AND NOT TO THE NEW ADDRESS I.E. HOUSE NO. 141 SECTOR - 9 PANCHKULA AND HENCE THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL DATE. 5. THAT THERE WERE VARIOUS COMMUNICATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT (A)-2 GURGAON WITH REGARD TO FIXATION OF CASE BUT NO REPL Y WAS RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT (A). 6. THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE TELEPHONIC DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON 07.09.2018 AN D CAME TO KNOW FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER HAS ALREADY BEEN PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) VIDE ORDER DATED 21.04.2016. 7. THAT AFTER REQUESTING THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT( A) GURGAON THROUGH MAIL ON 07.09.2018 THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) GURGAON FOR AY 2012-13 ON 21.09.2018 ONLY. PRIOR TO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED A NY ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) GURGAON FOR THE AY 2012-13. SD/- DEPONENT ITA NO. 1356-CHD-2018- SMT. ANITA MITTAL PANCHKULA 4 VERIFIED THAT THE ABOVE CONTENTS OF THIS AFFIDAVIT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND NOTHING HAS BEEN CONCEALED THEREIN. SD/- DEPONENT 4. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST WEEK OF APRIL 2016 HAD SHIFT ED TO A NEW ADDRESS HOWEVER THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT THE OLD ADDRESS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE DULY INFORMED THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 25.4.2016 ABOUT HIS NEW ADDRESS HOWEVER BY THAT TIME THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.4.2016. I T IS ALSO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER RECEIVED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DESPITE SEVERAL COMMUNICATIONS MADE WITH THE CIT(A). IT WAS ONLY ON 7.9.2018 THAT THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW OF PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.4.2016. THEREAFTER THE AS SESSEE OBTAINED A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SAME AND FILED THE PRESENT AP PEAL. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ALSO A PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.4.2016 SENT TO T HE CIT(A) THE PROOF OF DISPATCH OF WHICH HAS BEEN CORROBORATED BY PRODU CTION OF ORIGINAL REGISTERED A.D. / POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 26.4.2016 C ONFIRMS THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION. FURTHER THE FACTS CORROBORATED WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 7.10.2019 ARE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLIS H THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN AP PEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS INTENTIONAL RATHER THE ASSESSEE DULY T RIED TO INFORM THE LD. CIT(A) ABOUT THE CHANGE OF HER ADDRESS HOWEVER I N A SHORT SPAN OF ITA NO. 1356-CHD-2018- SMT. ANITA MITTAL PANCHKULA 5 TIME THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS PASSED. EVEN DESPITE THE RECEIPT OF THE LETTER DATED 25.4.2016 THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS SENT BY THE CIT(A) AT THE OLD ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN VIEW OF THIS THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED TH E REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH DELAY OF 882 DA YS. CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE DE LAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL IS HEREBY CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY TH E IMPUGNED EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS HEREBY SET ASIDE FOR THE SAME REASONS AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR AD JUDICATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSES SEE WILL PROMPTLY APPEAR AND PRESENT HER CASE EITHER PERSONALLY OR TH ROUGH COUNSEL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS AND WHEN CALLED FOR AND NOT TO CONT RIBUTE IN ANY MANNER IN DELAYING THE PROCEEDINGS. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IMM EDIATELY ON COMPLETION OF HEARING. SD/- ( / SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :07.11.2019 .. ITA NO. 1356-CHD-2018- SMT. ANITA MITTAL PANCHKULA 6 '+ - .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # / / CIT 4. # / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 % 2 34516 / DR ITAT CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7$ / GUARD FILE '+ # / BY ORDER 8 ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR