DHEERAJ KUMAR GUPTA, HARDOI V. ITO-3(2), HARDOI-1, HARDOI

ITA 116/LKW/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3578 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARISH GIDWANI
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.116/LKW/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dheeraj Kumar Gupta 3, Kayasth Tola Beniganj, Hardoi v. ITO 3(2) Hardoi TAN/PAN:AIHPG1681Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 19 07 2022 Date of pronouncement: 25 07 2022 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated 21.3.2022 for the Assessment Year 2011-12, raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts under passing ex-parte order without giving proper opportunity and ignoring the complete facts of the case. 2. The basis of initiation of re-assessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, its continuation and culmination vide order u/s 147/143 (3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 17.12.2018 is bad in law and be canceled. 3. That the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on fact of the law in adding Rs.68,73,220/- as income from undisclosed sources which were actually the sale proceeds of fertilizers and realization of debtors and the same is contrary to the facts. Page 2 of 3 2. None has appeared for the Assessee despite issuance of Notice through Speed Post, which Notice has not returned unserved. However, finding that the matter can be proceeded with in the absence of the Assessee, we are doing so, having heard the ld. D.R. and having perused the material on record. 3. Vide Ground no.1, the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts in passing the ex-parte order without giving proper opportunity and ignoring the complete facts of the case. 4. The ld. D.R. has placed reliance on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. Heard. We find that the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has dismissed the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. We also find that though the ld. CIT(A) has recorded certain dates of hearing in his order, it is not clear from his order, whether notice of hearing was ever served on the assessee. Moreover, he has not decided the appeal after discussing in detail, his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. In this view of the matter, another opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the assessee to represent his case fully before the ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.) and ‘Ms. Swati Pawa vs. Dy. CIT’, 175 ITD 622 (Del)] and incumbent on the ld. CIT(A) to decide an appeal on merit even in the absence of any representation before them. 6. In view of the above, the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A), to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh Page 3 of 3 proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/07/2022. Sd/- Sd/- [T. S. KAPOOR] [A. D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:25/07/2022 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order Assistant Registrar