M/S. Shakumbari Sugar and Allied Industries Limited, Saharanpur V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur

ITA 18/LKW/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7258 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HIM WAS ACTUALLY SERVE D ON OR
• Assessee Lawyers: WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL PARTIES

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.17 & 18/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 & 14-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.17 & 18/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 & 14-15 M/S SHAKUMBARI SUGAR & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD., VILL. & PO TODARPUR, DISTT. SAHARANPUR. PAN:AAACS 8456 M VS. DY.C.I.T.-6, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A)-II, KANPUR BOTH D ATED 05/10/2017 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE NOTED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED EX-PARTE ORDERS AS ACCORDING TO HIM, NOBODY HAS APPEARED ON THE DAT E WHEN THE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE HIM. FROM THE ORDER O F CIT(A), IT IS APPARENT THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ISSUED ONLY ONE NOTICE DATED 21 /09/2017 FOR COMPLIANCE ON 04/10/2017. HOWEVER, FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM WAS ACTUALLY SERVE D ON THE ASSESSEE OR APPELLANT BY SHRI SWARN SINGH, C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI J. S. MINHAS, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING 25/09/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 / 09 /201 8 I.T.A. NO.17 & 18/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 & 14-15 2 NOT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FEEL THAT ONE MO RE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEALS ON MERITS. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 250 WHICH DEALS WI TH THE PROCEDURE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), ALLOWS A RIGHT TO AN ASSE SSEE TO BE HEARD AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. EVEN THE NATURAL JUSTIC E DEMANDS THAT NO APPEAL SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF WITHOUT BEING HEARD THE PARTY OR WITHOUT GIVING HIM THE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY. WE ARE OF T HE VIEW FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN PROPE R AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS BY THE CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY TO BOTH TH E PARTIES, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE APPEALS TO THE FIL E OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE CIT(A) SHALL REFIX THE SAID APPE ALS AND DECIDE THE APPEALS AFRESH AFTER GIVING PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE PRES ENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AND NOT SEEK UNDUE ADJOURNMENT AND CO- OPERATE WITH LEARNED CIT(A) IN DISPOSING OF THE APP EALS. 3. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/09 /2018) SD/. SD/. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:28/09/2018 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW