Rajkala Agarwal, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer-1(3), Kanpur

ITA 153/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4400 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.153/LKW/16 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.153/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 SMT. RAJKALA AGARWAL, 14/75, GOPAL VIHAR, CIVIL LINES, KANPUR. PAN:ADMPA1980G VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER P. K. BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, KANPUR DATED 18/02/2016. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET THE LEARNED A. R. BEFORE US V EHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER AND DI SMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. EFFECTIVELY NO NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVE D ON THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE CASE WAS LAST FIXED ON 16/02/2016. THE CASE WA S LASTLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 15/02/2016 BUT ON THAT DATE THERE WAS STRIKE OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION THEREFORE, NOBODY COULD ATTEND THE CASE ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) DID NOT SEND ANY NOTICE FOR ADJOURNING THE C ASE FOR 16/02/2016. EVEN NO NOTICE COULD BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE EV EN IF SENT ON 15/02/2016. THIS FACT IS APPARENT FROM PAGE NO. 2 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A). APPELLANT BY SHRI SWARN SINGH, C.A. RESPONDENT BY SMT. NIDHI VERMA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 26/04/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25 / 05 /2016 I.T.A. NO.153/LKW/16 2 ACCORDINGLY, LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENT LY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN ANY EFFECTIVE HEARING BY CIT (A) AND HE WILL NOT OBJECT IF THE CASE IS SENT BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR F RESH HEARING. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED D. R. WAS FAIR ENOUGH TO CONCEDE THE POSITION THAT THERE WAS STRIKE ON 15/02/2016 AND TH EREFORE, NO EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GOING TH ROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE NOTED THIS FACT THAT WHEN THE CASE WAS FIXED BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 15/02/2016, THERE WAS A STRIKE OF BAR ON THIS DATE AND THEREFORE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPR ESENTED. THE CIT(A) JUST ADJOURNED THE CASE FOR 16/02/2016. THERE CANN OT BE EFFECTIVE SERVICE OF NOTICE FOR THE NEXT DATE. THEREFORE, IN OUR CON SIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT A PPEARING BEFORE CIT(A) ON 16/02/2016. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE BACK THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE CIT(A) SHALL REDECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AF TER DEALING WITH EACH AND EVERY GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/05/2016) SD/. SD/. ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( P. K. BANSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:25/05/2016 *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