Kohli Transport Co., Sitapur V. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Sitapur

ITA 211/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 21123714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.211 & 212/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SITAPUR VS M/S KOHLI TRANSPORT COMPANY, SITAPUR PAN AAFFK 1942 E (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) MR. M.T. RIZVI, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI RAJNISH YADAV, DR RESPONDENT BY 14 / 10 /2015 DATE OF HEARING 21 / 10 /2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JM. 1. THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-BAREILLY, PASSED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE, ASSAILING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) MAINLY ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS , WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. C.I.T. (A) ERRED IN LAW & FACT IN DISMI SSING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE WITHOUT ASCERTAINING, IF THE NOTICE FIXING THE APPEAL FOR 20-02-2015 HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE ABOVE NOTICE HAS NEITHER BEEN SERVED ON THE APPELLANT NOR ANY OF ITS REPRESENTATIVE. 2 3. THAT THE LD. C.I.T. (A) HAS NOT BEEN JUSTIFIED I N DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE GENU INE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) ARE CONTRARY TO LAW FACTS & MERIT OF THE CASE. THERE HAS BEEN NO LAPS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 271A HAVE WRONGLY BEEN INVOKED. 5. THAT PARTNER MRS. KAILASH KUMARI WHO IS MOTHER O F SRI M.M. KOHLI, PARTNER ALSO EXPIRED ON 20-02-2015. THE APPELLANT HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE DATE FIXED FOR 20.02.2015. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ATTENTION WAS INVI TED TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CIT(A) H AS RECORDED DATES OF HEARING OF NOTICE BUT HAS NOT RECORDED ANY FACT WITH REGARD TO SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS SUMMARILY WITHOUT DEALING ISS UES ON MERIT. THEREFORE, THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) DESERVE TO BE S ET ASIDE. 3. LD. DR SIMPLY PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ), WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED VARIOUS DATES OF ISSUANCE O F NOTICE BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN RECORDED IN RESPECT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE O F HEARING UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT A FFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCO RDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BAC K TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE APPEALS AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (A.K. GARODIA ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21/10/2015 AKS 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. REGIST RAR