Mahesh Kumar, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward 8(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1729/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1345 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M H NAIK
• Assessee Lawyers: V RAGHAVENDRA RAO
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA L HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1729/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 SRI MAHESH KUMAR HYDERABAD PAN: AJVPK9523C VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-8(2) HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI V. RAGHAVENDRA RAO RESPONDENT BY: SRI M.H.NAIK DATE OF HEARING: 12.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.03.2013 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD DATED 19 TH OCTOBER, 2012. 2. THE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMING OF EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER BY THE CIT(A) BY HIS EX-PARTE ORDER. 3. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND THE CIT(A) ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSING THE ORD ERS EX-PARTE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIV EN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND HE HAS PASSED THE ORDER ON 31.12.2010 BEING THE LAST DAY TO PASS THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. ACCORDING TO HIM EVEN THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS. HE PR AYED THE IT A NO. 1729/HYD/2012 SRI MAHESH KUMAR ================== 2 TRIBUNAL TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT THE AS SESSEES CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE DR NOT PUT SERIOUS OBJECTION FOR THIS PROPOSITI ON OF THE AR. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE , WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) WA S ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE ASSESSING OFFICER LETTER DATED 16 .12.2010 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM ON 27.1 2.2010 AT 11.30 AM. LATER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 31.12.2010. THE TIME AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TO P UT ITS CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONLY A FEW DAYS. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT WAITED TO GIVE EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND PASSED THE ORDER ON 31.12.2010 U/S. 14 4 OF THE ACT. THIS EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT FILED THE ORIGINAL DEMAND NOTICE ALONG WITH FORM 35. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING BY BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTERES T OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT THE ENTIRE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT DE NOVO. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12 TH MARCH, 2013. SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 12 TH MARCH, 2013 TPRAO IT A NO. 1729/HYD/2012 SRI MAHESH KUMAR ================== 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SRI MAHESH KUMAR, 4/56, 1 ST FLOOR, VIKAS NAGAR, DILSUKHNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(2), HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A) - III, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT - II, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR A' BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD.