Ratnakar Laxmikant Mandhale, Solapur V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Solapur

ITA 1061/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2152 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K VERMA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM . / ITA NO. 1061 /P U N/201 8 / ASSES SMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 1 1 RATNAKAR LAXMIKANT MANDHALE 2635, BHAGWANT HSG SOCIETY, KURUDWADI ROAD, BAKSHI, SOLAPUR 413401 . / APPELLANT PAN: A BSPM9488P VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 2 ( 2 ) , SOLAPUR . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI M.K. VERMA / DATE OF HEARING : 1 0 . 1 0 .201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15 . 1 1 .201 8 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - 7 , PUNE , DATED 10 . 04 .20 1 8 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 1 1 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. THE GROUND OF APPEA L NO.1 RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER: - ITA NO. 1061 /P U N/20 1 8 RATNAKAR LAXMIKANT MANDHALE 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING, THE ACT BEING IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, IT IS PRAYED THAT APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED BACK FOR RECONSIDERATION BY LEARNED CIT(A). 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. HE ADMITTED THAT APPEAL OF ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT ON THAT DATE, THE CIT(A) WAS ON LEAVE AND THEREAFTER, NO NOTICE OF HEARING WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. T HE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED ON MERITS. 5. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD AND AFTER HEARING BOTH THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES, THE FIRST ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAI NST EX - PARTE ORDER PASSED BY COMMISSIONER. THE PERUSAL OF APPELLATE ORDER REFLECTS THAT THE CIT(A) TALKS ABOUT VARIOUS NOTICES OF HEARING AND HE ALSO SCANS THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 11.01.2017. THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND IS THAT THE REPRESENTATION WAS MADE BY LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WAS AWAY ON LEAVE AND HENCE MIS - MATCH IN REPRESENTATION. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A), WHO SHALL AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO - OPERATE AND A PPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND FILE EVIDENCES / EXPLANATIONS WITH REGARD TO MERITS OF ADDITIONS MADE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS THUS, ITA NO. 1061 /P U N/20 1 8 RATNAKAR LAXMIKANT MANDHALE 3 ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. WE ARE NOT ADDRESSING THE OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL. 6 . IN THE RESUL T, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 201 8 . SD/ - (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 15 TH NOVEMBER , 201 8 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RE SPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 7 , PUNE ; 4. THE PR. CIT - 6 , PUNE ; 5. 6. , , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COP Y // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE