Pankaj Janak Kumar , Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(3), Bangalore

ITA 178/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7236 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMA MEENAKSHI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH SMC-C, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA NO. 178 (BANG) 2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 16) SHRI PANKAJ JANAK KUMAR , APPELLANT NO. 548, 2 ND FLOOR, 7 TH MAIN, 5 TH CROSS, HAL 2 ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560008. PAN. AFPPK1835D VS ITO, WARD 1 (2) (3), RESPONDENT BANGALORE. ASSESSEE BY : SMT. SHEETAL BORKAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SMT. PADMA MEENAKSHI, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 11-04-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16-04-2019 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) 1 BENGALURU DATED 26.11.2018 FOR A. Y. 2015 16. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 6 GROUNDS BUT ONLY ONE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ABOUT ADDITION OF RS. 10,25,968/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 69 OF THE I T ACT. 3. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT (A) IS EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THAT ONLY ONE DATE OF HEARING WAS FIXED BY CIT (A) ON 26.11.2018 AS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SHE SUBMITTED THAT IT SHOWS THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT PROVIDED BY CIT (A). SHE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THIS AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. AS AGAINST THIS, LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE SENT BY CIT (A) CAME BACK UNSERVED ITA NO. 178(BANG)2019 2 BUT THE LEARNED CIT A) HAS SENT THE NOTICE BY E. MAIL ALSO AND HENCE, NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE PROVIDED. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT THIS IS TRUE THAT ONLY ONE DATE OF HEARING WAS FIXED BY CIT (A) ON 26.11.2018 AND NOBODY APPEARED BEFORE CIT (A) ON THIS DATE AND NO REQUEST WAS MADE FOR ADJOURNMENT. I ALSO FIND THAT ALTHOUGH THE PAPER NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED BUT THE NOTICE WAS SENT BY E MAIL ALSO AND THEREFORE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT IT WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. BUT STILL, I FEEL THAT FIXING ONLY ONE DATE OF HEARING CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES. THEREFORE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE MATERIAL BACK TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, NO DECISION ON MERIT IS CALLED FOR AT THE PRESENT STAGE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 16 TH APRIL, 2019. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.