Smt. Saroj Singh, Faizabad V. ITO, Faizabad

ITA 133/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3217 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S UNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 133/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999 - 2000 SMT. SAROJ SINGH 744, HAMDANI KOTHI REIDGANJ, F AIZABAD V. ITO - II FAIZABAD PAN: BEMPS7450B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SMT. RANU BISWAS, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 03.06.13 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.03.13 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS, BUT THEY ALL RELATE TO THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 . 2 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX - PARTE AFTER REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT DURING THE COU RSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS DULY INFORMED THAT THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN QUANTUM IS : - 2 - : P ENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH C OURT. THE MATTER WAS LASTLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 26.10.2010 AND APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS SEN T TO THE LD. CIT(A) BY POST AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET ANY INFORMATION ABOUT FIXATION OF APPEAL AND THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL EX - PARTE VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 6.1.2011. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT S INCE THE LD. CIT(A) HA S DECIDED THE APPEAL WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR RE - ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE. 3 . THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS AFFORDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AND ALL THE TIME SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. 4 . HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE MATTER WAS LISTED ON 4 - 5 DATES AND SOMETIMES HEARING WAS ADJOURNED ON ACCOUNT OF ILLNESS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ON TWO TIMES HEARING WAS ADJOURNED ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL IN QUANTUM WAS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. LASTLY THE MATTER WAS FIXED FOR HEAR ING ON 2 2 .1 2 .2010 AND THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER THAT NOTICE SENT THROUGH SPEED POST FAILED TO EVOKE ANY RESPONSE. IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHETHER NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON 22. 12.2010. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL WITHOUT GETTING THE NOTICE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THIS ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE APPRECIATED. WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) IS REQ UIRED TO GET THE NOTICE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND : - 3 - : RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR ADJUDIC ATION OF THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.6.2013. SD/ - SD/ - [PRAMOD KUMAR] [ S UNIL KUMA R Y ADAV ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28.6.2013 JJ: 1906 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR