M/s Pioneer Sales Corporation, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer-1(3), Kanpur

ITA 104/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87826 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PUNIT KUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 104/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 M/S PIONEER SALES CORPORATION 26/96B, KARACHI KHANA KANPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3) KANPUR T AN /PAN : AAJFP9096L (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APP ELL ANT BY: SHRI. RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. PUNIT KUMAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 24 03 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 0 3 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS.4.66 LAKHS LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1 )(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED IN SHORT THE ACT'). 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ISSUED NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THR EE DATES ONLY. ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS DECLINED BY THE LD. CI T(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) MAYBE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO HIM FOR RE-ADJUDICATION O F THE APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. :-2-: 3. THE LD. D.R. HAS SIMPLY PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FIXED THIS APPEAL FOR HEARING ONLY ON THREE DATES, OUT OF WHICH NOTICE WA S SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR ONE OR TWO DATES. LATER ON, WHEN THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE APPEARED, HE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS DECLINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HAVING CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE . IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS N OT AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFO RE, WE SET ASIDE HIS ORDER AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIR ECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAT E MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/ - SD/ - [ A. K. GARODIA ] [ S UNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:31 ST MARCH, 2015 JJ:2403 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR