Paresh pratapkumar Shah, Ahmednagar V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1785/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 178524514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1785/PN/2013 (A.Y:2009-10) PARESH PRATAPKUMAR SHAH BAZAR PETH, SANGAMNER AHMEDNAGAR 422605 PAN: ACMPS2632Q APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD 4, AHMEDNAGAR RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.C. MALAKAR DATE OF HEARING : 09.09.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.09.2014 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IT/TP, PUN E DATED 28.08.2013 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S. 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), PUNE HAS ERRED IN PASSIN G EX-PARTE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNIT Y TO APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), PUNE HAS FAILED TO APPRE CIATE THAT WHEN THE APPELLANT SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND CASE WAS FIXED ON 14.08.2013, THE FILE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM CIT(A)-I, PUNE TO CIT(A)-IT/TP, PUNE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), PUNE HAS FAILED TO APPRE CIATE THAT WHEN APPELLANT'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APP ROACHED CIT(A)-I, PUNE FOR ADJOURNMENT ON 13.08.2013, HE WA S TOLD THAT THE FILES WERE TRANSFERRED TO CIT(A)-IT/TP, PU NE AND APPELLANT WILL GET FRESH NOTICE FROM THEM. THEREFOR E, NO ADJOURNMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE SOUGHT. ITA NO.1785/PN/13 PARESH PRATAPKUMAR SHAH 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), PUNE FAILS TO APPRECIATE THAT HE OUGHT TO HAVE ISSUED FRESH NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT, WHEN FILE IS TRANSFERRED TO HIM FROM CIT(A)-I, PUNE BEFORE PASSI NG EX-PARTE ORDER. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A)-IT/TP, PUNE MAY PLEASE BE SET ASIDE. 5. THE APPELLANT MAY KINDLY BE PERMITTED TO ADD TO OR ALTER ANY OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF DEEMED NECESSARY. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER BY OBSER VING AS UNDER: 2.2 DURING THE DAY OF HEARING, NO ONE ATTENDED NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE WAS RECEIVED. IN FACT THIS CASE WAS ALREADY ADJOURNED ONCE IN RESPONSE TO ADJOURNMENTS LETTER 24.06.2013. TILL TODAY THE AP PELLANT HAS NOT COME WITH REQUEST TO GRANT DATE FOR HEARING. I N THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT IS NO T INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF APPEAL. 2.1 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEV ER, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF CIT(A). SO, THE MATTER IS BEING DECIDED ON THE BAS IS OF ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. 2.2 IN OUR OPINION EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APP EARED FOR ANY REASON, THE CIT(A) IS SUPPOSED TO PASS A SPEAKING O RDER, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE. SO, THE SAME IS NOT JU STIFIED. SO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED EXPA RTE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 28.08.2013 AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER PRO VIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE MATTER ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE, WE ARE REFRAINING FROM COMMENTING ON THE MERIT OF THE ISSUE AT HAND. THE CIT(A) IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO.1785/PN/13 PARESH PRATAPKUMAR SHAH PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 10 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 GCVSR COPY TO:- 1) ASSESSEE 2) THE DEPARTMENT 3) THE CIT(A)-IT/TP, PUNE 4) THE CIT-IT/TP, PUNE 5) THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PUNE.