Naveen Sewani , Lucknow V. Income Tax Officer, Lucknow

ITA 19/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 1923714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P SRIVASTA VA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAURAV GUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.19/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008 - 09 SHRI NAVEEN SEWANI, C - 1691, INDIRA NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:BCQPS7161B VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE - 1(2), LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI SAURAV GUPTA, C. A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI Y. P. SRIVASTAVA, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 17/09/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 1 /10/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - I, LUCKNOW DATED 13/09/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 2. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT WHICH IS AGAINST THE JUDICIAL PRINCIPLES OF AUDI - ALTERM - PARTEM, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS VOID AB - INITIO AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AUTHORIZ ED COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT DULY ATTENDED ON 28.08.2012 TO SEEK AN ADJOURNMENT BUT THE SAME WAS DENIED HENCE, CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH NO RESPONSE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS WITHOUT PROPER OPPORT UNITY AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT AS PER CIT(A), LAST HEARING WAS FIXED ON 28/08/2012 AND THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE BUT THIS IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. HE SUBMITTED THAT A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY ATTENDED ON THIS DATE TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT BUT THE SAME WAS DENIED AND HENCE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS NO RESPONSE BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THIS ALSO THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER AFTE R CONSIDERING THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE HIM AND HE HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN A SUMMARY MANNER. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. HENCE, W E SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS TIME , THE ASSESSEE SHOULD COOPERATE AND MAKE COMPLIANCE AND SHOULD NOT SEEK ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT COMPELLING REASONS. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 ARE ALLOWED . 4. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION AS PER ABOVE PARA AS PER WHICH WE HAVE RESTORED THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO CIT(A), THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT DO NOT CALL FOR ANY ADJUDICATION AT THIS STAGE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 1 /10/2014. *C.L.SINGH 3 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 ASSTT. REGISTRAR