1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.151/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006 - 07 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(2), KANPUR. VS. SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN TRIVEDI, 228, SHIV KATRA, HARJINDER NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:ACLPT3665R (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI S. P. KAUSHAL, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D. R. RESPONDENT BY 11/09/2014 DATE OF HEARING 11 /11/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - I, DEHRADUN HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF CIT(A) - II, KANPUR DATED 19/12/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - L DEHRADUN BEING HOLDING THE CONCURRENT CHARGE OF THE LD. CIT (A) II, KANPUR VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED ON 19.12.2013 IN APPEAL NO. 165/CIT(A)/ITO - 1(2)/2009 - 10 RELAT ING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 HAS ERRED IN LAW BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. I.E. THE L.T.O. 1(2) KANPUR WHO HAD SINCE MADE WRONG ADDITION OF RS.1,04,000.00 IN A VERY HASTY AND ARBITRARY 2 MANNER WHEREAS ALL THE DETAILS OF A/CS WHICH WERE P UT UP BEFORE HIM WERE OPEN TO FULL VERIFICATION BUT THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND ALSO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE NATURAL JUSTICE OF LAW AS APPELLANT IS A LIC AGAINST AND THE COMMISSION DRAWN MOSTLY COVERED WITH THE NECESSARY EXPENSES. HENCE THE ADDITI ON REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED ACCORDINGLY. 2. THAT THE LD. A.O. HAS ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1) (B) AND 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT., 1961 AND FURTHER IN A VERY HASTY AND ARBITRARY MANNER AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE NATURAL JUSTICE OF LAW HAS IMPOSED PENALTIES OF RS.10,000/ - AND RS.16,000/ - RESPECTIVELY WHEREAS THE APPEAL'S PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING FOR DECISION AND THE SAME ARE PRAYED TO BE QUASHED ACCORDINGLY BECAUSE NO ANY PENALTIES ORDERS WERE SERVED UPON HIM BUT THE SAME WERE KNOWN TO HIM W HEN FOR RECOVERIES THE NOTICES U/S 221 WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON HIM. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A) IN A HASTY MANNER WITHOUT AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE A SSESSEE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A) FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) . 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 3 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE LAST NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE HAS COME BACK UNSERVED WITH THE REMARKS OF POSTAL DEPARTMENT THAT THE ADDRESSEE IS NOT AVA ILABLE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE FORM OF APPEAL. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS NOT PROVIDE D BY CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) 3 AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER A FFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 11 /11/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR