Tax can be levied only under the express provision of the law and not on account of ignorance or mistake of the assessee

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH
BENCH ‘SMC’ CHANDIGARH

BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM

ITA No. 1089/CHD/2019
Assessment Year : 2015-16

Shri Amrik Singh Bhullar,
S/o Shri Mukhtiar Singh,
St. No. 2, Mehal Mubarak Colony,
Sangrur.
PAN No: AHPPB9630D
Appellant 

VS

The ITO,
Ward,
Sangrur.
Respondent

Assessee by : None (Adjournment application of
Shri Sanket Singla, Advocate)
Revenue by : Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT

Date of Hearing : 04.03.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2021

Hearing conducted via Webex

ORDER

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 14.05.2019 of CIT(A), Patiala pertaining to 2015-16 assessment year is assailed on various grounds including ground No. 1, 2 and 7 which read as under :

1. That the order of the Worthy CIT(A) in so far is against the appellant, is bad in law against the facts and circumstances of the case, Principles of Natural Justice, Equity and all other known Principles of Law.

2. That the Worthy CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the rectification application filed by the appellant that the same is not a mistake apparent from the record.

3. xxx
4. xxx
5. xxx
6. xxx

7. That the worthy A.O has failed to appreciate the facts that the order passed by the Worthy Assessing officer, Sangrur is barred by limitation as the appellant filed an application for rectification on 01-12-2017 through e-portal which was transferred to the concerned A.O. on 05-12-2017 which was to be decided within six months as per section 154(8) but the order was passed on 09-11-2018 i.e. after expiry of 6 months.”

2. By the remaining grounds, the assessee assails the issue on merits.

3. At the time of hearing, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee. None was present in support thereof. However, considering the record, the ld. Sr.DR addressing the aforesaid grounds was required to point out from the order whether the assessee can be said to have been heard before the passing of the order as violation of principles of natural justice have been pleaded by the assessee-appellant.

4. The ld. Sr.DR referred to written submissions of the assessee extracted in para 4.5 of the impugned order. Referring to these, it was submitted that the assessee appears to have been heard as submissions extracted can be said to have been considered as possibly that was the only argument of the assessee. Accordingly, it was her submission that the assessee for all intents and purposes can be said to have been heard. 

To know more in details find the attachment file