IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A - BENCH, LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.162(LKW.)/2011 A.Y.: 2005-06 MOHD. ANWAR HUSSAIN, VS. THE ITO, RANGE II(2), 401/18A, ABDUL AZIZ ROAD, LUCKNOW. CHOWK, LUCKNOW. PAN ACEPH4667C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.K.RAM, 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 20.1.2011 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS CONTAINED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND NOT ADJUDICATING GROUNDS NOS.2 TO 6 OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). HOWEVER, AT THE VERY OUTSET, SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, ADVOCATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO BY PASSING EX PARTE ORDER. ACCORDING TO SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE 2 ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER BE REMANDED TO THE LD.CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI R.K.RAM, D.R. STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALREADY AFFORDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, ADVOCATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT TENABLE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS TRUE THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS PASSED EX PARTE ORDER WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE OR ITS DULY AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. AFTER PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD.CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAD TO THE ASSESSEE. 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 3 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, NO FINDINGS ARE BEING GIVEN ON MERITS. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.5.2011. SD. SD. (N.K.SAINI) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MAY 27TH ,2011. COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R.,ITAT, LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA.