The Apex Electronics, Patiala Vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Patiala
May, 27th 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCHES `A' CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Assessment Year: 2009-10
The Apex Electronics, Vs. The ITO,
Patiala Ward-4, Patiala
PAN No. AALFA5027C
Appellant By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh
Respondent By : Shri Akhilesh Gupta
Date of hearing : 19.05.2014
Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2014
PER T.R.SOOD, A.M.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 11.1.2013
of Ld. CIT (Appeals), Patiala.
2. In this appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds:-
1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
has erred in law in upholding the framing of the
assessment ex-parte without affording proper
opportunity which is against the Principals of Natural
Justice and as such the assessment framed is illegal,
arbitrary and unjustified.
2. That admittedly the assessee firm was not available at
the address where the notice was being served and as
such the passing of an order without service of notice
is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
3. That without prejudice to the above, the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in
law as well as on facts in upholding the enhancement
of sales to Rs. 19,50,00,000/- as against declared at
Rs. 18,94,53,975/- and thereafter applying net profit
rate of 2% resulting in an addition of Rs. 39,00,000/-
which is arbitrary and unjustified.
4. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) is erroneous, arbitrary opposed to law and
facts of the case and is, thus, untenable.
3. The brief facts of the case are that during assessment proceedings it was
pointed out that certain disputes were going on between the parties and that is
why the compliance could not be made to various enquiries. Ultimatel y, the
assessment order was passed wherein the income of the assessee was estimated.
Aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and notice was
issued in the name of the firm at 90, Mansahia Colony, Patiala, which was the
address given in the appeal memorandum but the notice was refused, therefore,
the Ld. C IT(A) decided the appeal on ex. parte basis and confirmed the estimate
made by the Assessing Officer.
4. Before us, the affidavit of Shri Achhru Kumar Singla has been filed in
which it is stated that because of serious dispute with Shri Tejinder Pal Bhalla
who is also one of the partner and whose address was given before C IT(A)
wrongl y refused to accept the notice. Another affidavit of Shri Pardeep
Dhawan S/o Late Shri Krishan Lal who was also partner has also been filed
stating the same facts. The Ld. Counsel mainl y submitted that there was serious
dispute and that is why proceedings could not be attended before the CIT(A).
He further submitted that he is ready to present himself before CIT(A) and
receive notice so that proceedings could be attended.
5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of CIT(A).
6. After considering the rival submissions, we find that assessee could not
attend the proceedings because of the refusal to receive notice by one of the
partner. Since it becomes clear from the affidavit and other documents filed
before us that some disputes are going between partners, in our opinion, the
assessee should not suffer because of the non-cooperation of one of the partner
and therefore, in the interest of justice we set aside the order of Ld. C IT(A) and
remit the matter back to his file. The Ld. Counsel is directed to appear before
the CIT(A) and request for an appropriate date for which he may receive the
notice and attend proceedings.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21.05.2014
(SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER
Dated : 21 s t May, 2014
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. The DR