Prakash Chandra Sharma, Kanpur V. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur

ITA 176/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3226 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS DR PER PRAM
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW [BEFORE SHRI S.K.YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] I.T.A. NO.176/LUC/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 PRAKASH CHANDRA SHARMA -VS- C.I.T.-II, KANPUR 51/5, RAM GANJ, KANPUR (PAN: AAACU 1759K) ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 31.05.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 28.06.2013 APPEARANCES : FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI ABHIN AV MEHROTRA, C.A : FOR THE RESPONDENT : SMT. RANU BISWAS, DR O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONERS ORDER DATED 24 TH FEBRUARY 2012, PASSED UNDER SECTION 264 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS : 1. THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE PETITION U/S.264. 2. THAT LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION AND LD. CIT II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME BY REJECTING THE PETIT ION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS OF THE CASE, FACTS AND EV IDENCES ON RECORD. 3. THAT LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND IN COMPLETING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN H ASTE. 4. THAT LD. A O HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEFAULTED IN VARIOUS PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT. 2 ITA NO.176-LUC-2012 PRAKASH CHANDRA SHARMA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 5. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 264, ASSESSMENT ORD ER AS WELL AS ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE SAME ARE BAD IN LAW AS WE LL AS ON FACTS AND APPROPRIATE RELIEF DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED TO THE AS SESSEE. 6. THAT STATEMENT OF FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. A O MAY BE TREATED AS PART OF THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 7. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO INTRODUCE, WI THDRAW OR MODIFY ANY GROUND OF APPEAL WITH THE KIND PERMISSIONS OF YOUR HONOUR. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ACCEPTS THAT AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 264 CANNOT BE CHALLENGED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. HE, HOWEVER, PRAYS FOR LIBERTY TO TAKE UP THE GRIEVANCES BEFORE APPROPRIATE FORUM. LE ARNED D.R. DOES NOT OPPOSE THE SAME. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE TREAT THE A PPEAL AS NON-MAINTAINABLE AND DISMISS IT ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28 TH JUNE, 2013. SD/- SD/- (S. K. YADAV) (PRAMOD KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28 TH JUNE, 2013 TALUKDAR COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A), 4. CIT, 5. DR, LUCKNOW BENCHES, LUCKNOW TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR , ITAT 3 ITA NO.176-LUC-2012 PRAKASH CHANDRA SHARMA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09