SUDAMA DEVI L/H LAL CHAND YADAV, SONEBHADRA V. CIT (APPEALS), ALLAHABAD

ITA 157/ALLD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5082 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MADHUK
• Section: 13

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. 157/ALLD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 SUDAMA DEVI L/H OF LATE LALCHAND YADAV OWIE COLONY, ANPARA SONEBHADRA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER MIRZAPUR TAN/PAN: AAIPY5242N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S. K. MADHUK, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 12 02 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13 02 2020 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALLAHABAD, DATED 21/9/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. 2. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE THROUGH RPAD, WHICH HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK UNSERVED, WITH THE POSTAL REMARK INCOMPLETE ADDRESS. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO.36. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMMUNICATED ANY CHANGE OF ADDRESS. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THIS APPEAL CAN BE DISPOSED OF IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD. D.R. AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. 3. BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION. THE LD. ITA NO.157/ALLD/2019 PAGE 2 OF 3 CIT(A) HAS RECORDED CERTAIN DATES OF HEARING IN HIS ORDER, BUT THERE IS NO PROOF 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 13/02/2020. SD/ - SD/ - [ T. S. KAPOOR ] [ A. D. JAIN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:13/02/2020 JJ:1202 ITA NO.157/ALLD/2019 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR