RADHA KRISHNA, HAMEERPUR V. I T OFFICER-5(5), BANDA

ITA 136/ALLD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4972 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 136/ALLD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 RADHA KRISHNA WARD NO.10, NPRAUS MAUDHA, HAMEERPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(5) BANDA TAN/PAN: BEIPK8686P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A. K. SINGH, D. R . DATE OF HEARING: 18 11 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19 11 201 9 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, KANPUR, DATED 28/12/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14. 2. IN THIS CASE, AN APPLICATION DATED 12/11/2019 HAS BEEN MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJOURNMENT TO SOME OTHER DATE, PREFERABLY AFTER 15 DAYS. SINCE THERE WAS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR ADJOURNMENT AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO REGULAR FUNCTIONING OF THE BENCH IN ALLAHABAD, WE REJECT THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD. D.R. AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE MATTER, WE FIND, CAN BE PROCEEDED WITH IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION, OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL. THE ITA NO.136/ALLD/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 LD. CIT(A) HAS RECORDED CERTAIN DATES OF HEARING IN HIS ORDER, BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM HIS ORDER WHETHER NOTICE OF HEARING WAS EVER SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. SUCH SERVICE OF NOTICES HAS, HOWEVER, BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. HEARD. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH, 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. 5. 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. THE ASSESSEE, NO DOUBT, SHALL COOPERATE IN THE FRESH PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ALL PLEAS AVAILABLE UNDER THE LAW SHALL REMAIN SO AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/11/2019. SD/ - SD/ - [ T. S. KAPOOR ] [ A. D. JAIN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:19/11/2019 JJ:1811 ITA NO.136/ALLD/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR