Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Standard Autogears (P) Ltd., Mohali vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal9 June 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal set aside an ex parte appellate order where the appellate authority had decided the appeal on the day it was first fixed, after notice was served on a person whom the assessee's director affirmed was not an employee of the company, and held that such a decision was passed without affording reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard, and so remitted the appeal for fresh disposal by the first appellate authority.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALDIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARHBEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERITA No. 1137/CHD/2014Assessment Year: 2007-08M/s Standard Autogears (P) Ltd., Vs The DCIT,Plot No. 125, Indu strial Area, Circle 6(I),Phase IX, Mohali.MohaliPAN: AAACG8512E(Appellant) (Respondent)Appellant by : Shri Anil BatraRespondent by : Dr. Amarveer SinghDate of Hearing : 09.06.2015Date of Pronouncement : 09.06.2015

O R D E R

PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld.

CIT(Appeals) Chandigarh dated 28.10.2014 for assessment year

2007-08 challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c)

of the Income Tax Act.

2. The ld. CI T(Appeals) noted in the appellate order that case

was fixed before him on 28.10.2014 and the notice was served

upon one Mr. Anish Kumar at the address of the assessee but

nobody attended on the date of hearing. Therefore, appeal of

assessee was decided ex-parte.

3. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there is

improper service of notice on one Shri Anish Kumar. He has

filed affidavit of Shri Anil Atri, Director/Managing Director of

the assessee company explaining therein that there is no such 2

employee of the assessee company by the name of Anish Kumar,

therefore, order of the ld. CI T(Appeals) is against the principle of

natural justice.

4. Considering the rival submissions in the light of above

facts, we are of the view the matter requires consideration at the

level of the ld. CIT(Appeals). It appears from the impugned order

that the case was fixed only on 28.10.2014 and ex-parte order

was passed by ld. CIT(Appeals) on the same day. The assessee

has filed affidavit of the Director explaining that Anish Kumar is

not employee of the assessee and there is no such employee

employed by assessee company. We are, therefore, of the view

appeal of the assessee has been decided by ld. CIT(Appeals)

without giving reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard.

5. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order

and restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of ld.

CIT(Appeals) with direction to re-decide appeal of the assessee

by giving reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the

assessee.

6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 9 t h June, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

(T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 9 t h June,2015. 'Poonam' Copy to:

The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT(A), The CIT,DR

Assistant Registrar, ITA T Chandigarh

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free