Alok Kumar, Gaya V. I.T.O., Ward-1, Gaya

ITA 152/PAT/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9580 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: NITISH PRASAD SINHA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH SMC , PATNA BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 152 /PAT./201 7 : ASSTT. YEAR : 20 1 0 - 1 1 ALOK KUMAR, PROP. M/S DHUNDIRAJ TRADERS, PURANI GODOWN, GAY A - 823001 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 , GAYA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A EPK1223R ASSESSEE BY : SH. NITISH PRASAD SINHA , ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. ABHAY KUMAR , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 15 .03 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 . 0 3 .201 8 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2017 OF LD. CIT(A) - 1 , PATNA . 2 . THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO . 2 RELATES TO THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD . 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 08.10.2010 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4,99,210 / - . LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.13,50,533/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CARRIAGE INWARD BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND ALSO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.30,000/ - OUT OF THE EXPENSES FOR WANT OF PROPER BILLS AND VOUCHERS. ACCORDINGLY, INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.18,79,74 0/ - . 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO PASSED THE EX - PARTE ORDER AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO. ITA NO. 152 /PAT. /201 7 ALOK KUMAR 2 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CI T(A) PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER EX - PARTE WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 8 . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE LD. CIT (A) PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER EX - PARTE WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE F ACE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) MENTIONED THAT NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE OR THE DEPARTMENT. HE HAD ALSO NOT MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL S ETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. I , THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE B ACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A ) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDE R PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16 /03/2018) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 16 /03 /2018 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT( APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR