Vijay Srivastava, V. Income Tax Officer, Kanpur

ITA 152/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4418 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NIDHI VERMA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.152/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2),KANPUR VS VIJAY SRIVASTAVA, 602,LIG, AWAS VIKAS COLONY, FATEHPUR PAN AVPPS 0643 H (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) NONE APPELLANT BY SMT. NIDHI VERMA, D.R. RESPONDENT BY 26/04/2016 DATE OF HEARING 08 / 06 /201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JM. 1. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, KANPUR DATED 19.01.2015 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 26.04.2016, B UT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR NOT FILED ANY APPLICAT ION FOR ADJOURNMENT. ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES IN THE LIGHT OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL, WE FIND THAT THIS APP EAL CAN BE DISPOSED OF EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, T HE APPEAL WAS HEARD EX- PARTE. 3. LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) IN THE AFORESAID CASE, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY RECORDED I N PARA 2 OF HIS ORDER DIFFERENT DATES OF HEARING FIXED BY HIM BUT HE HAS NOT RECORDED CATEGORICALLY WITH RESPECT TO SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING. WE AL SO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE 2 HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT ON OATH STATING THEREIN THAT THE NOTICES DATED 20.11.2013, 26.01.2013, 08.12.2014 AND 29.12.2014 S AID TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE CIT(A) FOR COMPLIANCE ON 26.12.2013, 26.02.2014, 18.12.2014 AND 07.01.2015 RESPECTIVELY WERE NEVER RECEIVED BY THE DEPONENT OR ANYONE AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE THE SAME NOR IT IS CLA IMED BY THE CIT(A) TO HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF T HESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO READJ UDICATE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAT E MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (P.K. BANSAL) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED: 08/06/2016 AKS 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. REG ISTRAR