Shri Ravi Kant Tripathi, Faizabad V. DCIT,

ITA 121/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 12123714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K B AJAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: M P MISHRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Right to appeal; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B - BENCH, LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.121(LKW.)/2011 A.Y.: 2006-07 SHRI RAVI KANT TRIPATHI, VS. THE DY.CIT, 820,AWADHPURI AWAS VIKAS COLONY, FAIZABAD. AMANIGANJ, FAIZABAD. PAN ADMPT7391L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.P. MISHRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K.BAJAJ, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-I, LUCKNOW DATED 11.1.2011 RELATING TO TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INCLINED TO PROSECUTE HIS APPEAL AND IN DISM ISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BY SERVING A NOTICE THROUGH THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN FAILING TO CONSIDER JU DICIOUSLY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND PASSING THE 2 APPELLATE ORDER IN A SUMMARY MANNER WITHOUT REQUIRI NG THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO OFFER HIS COMMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AFTER EXAMINING THE ASSESSMENT RE CORDS. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APP EALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ARBITRARILY CONFIRMING THE UNJUSTIFIABLE ADDITION OF RS.7,49,812/-. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR PERMISSION TO ADD, DELETE OR AMEND ANY GROUND / GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND ALSO PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX PARTE. AFTER PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE APP EAL. IN OUR OPINION, THE LD.CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. IN THE CASE O F RADHIKA CHARAN BANERJEE VS. SAMBALPUR MUNICIPALITY, AIR (1979) ORISSA 69, T HE HON'BLE ORISSA HIGH COURT HELD THAT A RIGHT OF APPEAL WHEREVER CONFERR ED INCLUDES A RIGHT OF BEING AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, IRRE SPECTIVE OF THE LANGUAGE CONFERRING SUCH RIGHT. THAT IS A PART AND PARCEL OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WHERE AN AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO ACT IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITY, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO GIVE THE APPELLANT AN ADEQUATE OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. THUS, CONSIDERING THE E NTIRE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE THINK IT PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN TOTO AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE A ND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE LD.CIT(A) TO 3 DECIDE THE APPEAL PREFERABLY WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, NO FINDINGS ARE BEING GIVEN ON MERITS. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.4.20 11. SD. SD. (N.K.SAINI) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT APRIL 27TH ,2011. COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R.,ITAT, LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA.