Shashi Enterprises, Lucknow V. ITO, Lucknow

ITA 160/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 16023714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K B AJAJ
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Right to appeal

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B - BENCH, LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.160(LKW.)/2011 A.Y.: 2007-08 SHASHI ENTERPRISES, VS. THE ITO, RANGE II(3), 58/45,PIPAL WALI GALI, LUCKNOW. HUSSAINGANJ, LUCKNOW. PAN ABGFS4513H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K.BAJAJ, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-I, LUCKNOW DATED 4.1.2011 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 9 GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER : 1. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, LUCKNOW ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN FRAMING THE ORDER AS AN EX PARTE ORDER WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AS NARRATED IN THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE 2 APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX PARTE. AFTER PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. IN OUR OPINION, THE LD.CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. IN THE CASE OF RADHIKA CHARAN BANERJEE VS. SAMBALPUR MUNICIPALITY, AIR (1979) ORISSA 69, THE HON'BLE ORISSA HIGH COURT HELD THAT A RIGHT OF APPEAL WHEREVER CONFERRED INCLUDES A RIGHT OF BEING AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LANGUAGE CONFERRING SUCH RIGHT. THAT IS A PART AND PARCEL OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WHERE AN AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO ACT IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITY, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO GIVE THE APPELLANT AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. THUS, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE THINK IT PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN TOTO AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL PREFERABLY WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, NO FINDINGS ARE BEING GIVEN ON MERITS. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.6.2011. SD. SD. (N.K.SAINI) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT JUNE 27TH ,2011. 3 COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R.,ITAT, LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA.