Ankit Kumar Shukla S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar Shukla, Jalaun V. ITO, Jalaun

ITA 166/AGR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5880 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 144; 142(1); 250; 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH ‘SMC’, AGRA BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 166/AGR/2018 (for Assessment Year : 2013-14) Ankit Kumar Shukla S/o Shri Shiv Kumar Shukla 768, Kuthond Distt. Jalaun PAN No. CZTPS 2875 M Vs. ITO Churkhi Road Orai Distt., Jalaun (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Deependra Mohan, C.A. Revenue by Mr. Waseem Arshad, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 22.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 29.03.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – I, Kanpur relating to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under:- 2 3. Assessee is an individual who is stated to be engaged in the business of selling of SIM Cards & Recharge Coupons. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 12.11.2013 declaring total income at Rs.1,80,110/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. AO has noted that notices issued u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act had remained uncomplied by the assessee. He thereafter passed assessment order u/s 144 of the Act vide order dated 15.03.2016 determining the total income at Rs.19,30,690/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.12.2017 in Appeal No.CIT(A)- 1/Knp/10295/2017-18/300 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds : “1. That Ld. Lower appellate authority erred in considering the facts, that notice was not served appellant and decied ex- parte without giving opportunity being heard which is against the natural justice. 2. That Ld. Lower appellate authority erred in the considering the facts available on record and passed the order in question in mechanical order without applying judicial order. 3. That Ld. Lower appellate authority erred in report available on the record. 4. The Ld. Lower appellate authority erred in considering on books of account available on the assessee. 5. That Ld. Lower appellate authority hearing date 12.07.2017, 16.10.2017, 27.11.2017 was present in office Kanpur but that day the Ld. Authority not present. Therefore, legal document submitted to clerk. Mr. Yadav without any receiving. Hearing date 18.12.2017 on fixed date but I was sick my advocate.” 3 4. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issue on merits. He submitted that the notices which have been stated to have been issued for hearing by CIT(A) was not received by the assessee and the E-mail address to which the notices have been sent does not belong to the assessee. He therefore submitted that in the interest of justice one more opportunity be given to the assessee to submit the necessary details and he further assured that assessee will co-operate by furnishing all the required details. 5. Learned DR on the other hand objected to the request made by AR seeking second innings. He further submitted that no material has been placed by the assessee to demonstrate that the various notices issued by CIT(A) were not received by the assessee. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before us, it is the contention of the Learned AR that the notices issued by the CIT(A) were not served on the assessee and therefore assessee could not comply with the directions. The perusal of CIT(A) order reveals that CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits. Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of I. T. Act mandate the CIT(A) to state the points in dispute and thereafter assign the reasons in support of his conclusion. We are of the view that by dismissing 4 the appeal without considering the issue on merits, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the mandate required in Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. Further it is also a well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties and no parties should be condemned unheard. In view of these facts, we set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) dated 27.12.2017 and restore the issue to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issues after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to furnish the details called for by the lower authorities. In view of our decision to restore the issue to CIT(A), we are not adjudicating on merits the grounds raised by the assessee. Thus the ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.03.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (LALIET KUMAR) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 29.03.2022 PY* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AGRA