PINKU PANDEY, ALLAHABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE-I(3), ALLAHABAD

ITA 189/ALLD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4969 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: L K JAISWAL
• Section: 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 189/ALLD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 PINKU PANDEY VILLAGE BANDHPUR LAL GOPAL GANJ ALLAHABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3) ALLAHABAD TAN/PAN: CGWPP9877N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI L. K. JAISWAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A. K. SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 18 11 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19 11 201 9 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALLAHABAD, DATED 17/11/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. 2. BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION, OBSERVING THAT THERE IS NO VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), HIS OFFICE HAD ISSUED FIVE NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT NO DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE AND THE DATE FOR COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER. HE SUMMARILY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. SUCH SERVICE OF NOTICE HAS, HOWEVER, BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. HEARD. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, ITA NO.189/ALLD/2018 PAGE 2 OF 2 HE HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL AFTER DISCUSSING IN DETAIL, HIS REASONS FOR AGREEING WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING REQUIRES TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT HER CASE FULLY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). EVEN OTHERWISE, IT IS TRITE [S. VELU PALANDAR VS. DCIT 83 ITR 683 (MAD.) AND MS. SWATI PAWA VS. DY. CIT, 175 ITD 622 (DEL)] AND INCUMBENT ON THE LD CIT(A) TO DECIDE AN APPEAL ON MERIT EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION BEFORE THEM. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED AFRESH ON MERIT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ON AFFORDING DUE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, NO DOUBT, SHALL COOPERATE IN THE FRESH PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ALL PLEAS AVAILABLE UNDER THE LAW SHALL REMAIN SO AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/11/2019. SD/ - SD/ - [T. S. KAPOOR] [A. D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:19/11/2019 JJ:1811 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR