ITA NO 1206 OF 2018 K RAMCHANDER HYDERAB AD. PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1206/HYD/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SHRI K. RAMCHANDER HYDERABAD PAN: ADFPK5165L VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(4) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM FOR REVENUE : SMT. M. NARMADA, DR O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2009-10 AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-6, HYDERABAD, DATED 19.03. 2018. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE ORDER OF THE ID. I COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS)-6, HYDERABAD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT I S ERRONEOUS, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE ON FACTS AND I N LAW, APART FROM BEING PASSED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINC IPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISM ISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT GRANTING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF FILING ADJOURNMENT PETITION BY THE COUNSEL. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ON 16.03.2018 THE COUNSEL FILED ADJOURNMENT PETITION ALONG WITH VAKALATNAMA AND ENT ERED APPEARANCE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE APPEAL PROCEED INGS. DATE OF HEARING : 23.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2018 ITA NO 1206 OF 2018 K RAMCHANDER HYDERAB AD. PAGE 2 OF 3 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAVING ACCEPT ED THE PETITION FOR ADJOURNMENT DATED 16.03.2018 SHOUL D NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEAL S) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APP EALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT HE IS NOT VESTED WITH POW ER UNDER THE LT. ACT TO DISMISS AN APPEAL EXPARTE. THE LEARN ED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DECIDED THE AP PEAL BASED ON RECORDS. 5. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING. 2. UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER, WE FIND THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF H EARING WHICH WAS FIXED ON 16.03.2018, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A LETTE R SEEKING ADJOURNMENT FOR A PERIOD OF THREE WEEKS TO FILE THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, BUT THE CIT (A) HAD REFUSED TO GRANT A DJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED O N ADJOURNING THE CASE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN SEEKING ADJOUR NMENT ON EARLIER OCCASIONS ALSO. THE CIT (A), THEREFORE, DIS MISSED THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF NON-PROSECUTION BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. AS LONG AS THE ASSESSEE HAD R EASONABLE CAUSE FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT, THE CIT (A) OUGHT NO T TO HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION, BUT OUGHT TO HAVE DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AN D DIRECT THE CIT (A) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING. ITA NO 1206 OF 2018 K RAMCHANDER HYDERAB AD. PAGE 3 OF 3 3. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 31 ST OCTOBER, 2018. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 SHRI K.RAMCHANDER C/O K.VASANTKUMAR, A.V.RAGHURAM & P VINOD ADVOCATES, 610 BABUKHAN ESTATES, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD-1 2 ITO WARD 6(4) IT TOWERS, MASABTANK, HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-6 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 6 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER