SRI HARI SHANKER MISHRA, ALLAHABAD V. ACIT-III, MIRZAPUR

ITA 212/ALLD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1621 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 148; 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.212/ALLD/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Sri. Hari Shankar Mishra, 91-A, Alopibagh, Allahabad, U.P PAN-ADVPM9244N v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Mirzapur (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Mr. Utkarsh Gupta, Adv Respondent by: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 01.06.2022 Date of pronouncement: 01.06.2022 O R D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31 st August, 2017 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That in any view of the matter the assessment order dated 28.03.2014 u/s 147/143(3) of the income tax Act by determining the income at Rs. 71,48,050.00 against the returned income of Rs. 48,90,050.00 is unjustified bad both on facts and in law and therefore declared income should have been accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That in any view of the matter the notice u/s 148 of the income tax Act was not served on the assessee nor reasons recorded for issue of the notice u/s 148 of the income tax Act has been supplied to the assessee as yet though the return was filed, therefore during the pendency of the assessee's return initiation of the proceedings u/s 148 of the income tax Act is unjustified and entire actions of the assessing officer are illegal and based on presumptions and conjectures. 3. That in any view of the matter the notice u/s 143(2) of the income tax Act, as alleged in the assessment order, was not served on the assessee and in this regard required provisions of the income tax Act were neither followed nor fulfilled by the assessing officer hence the assessment is invalid and illegal. ITA No. 212/Alld/2017 Sri Hari Shankar Mishra 2 4. That in any view of the matter since the assessing officer himself has admitted in the assessment order that the return was filed by the assessee and the same was taken into account then what was the purpose and hurry to start proceedings u/s 148 of the income tax Act during pendency of the return, hence the assessment is illegal and invalid. 5. That in any view of the matter an addition of Rs. 22,58,000.00 made by the assessing officer by alleging unexplained bank deposits is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore the addition is liable to be deleted in all fairness and in interest of justice.” 6. That in any view of the matter the observations and findings made by the assessing officer in the assessment order for making the addition and about service of the various notices are incorrect and contrary to the actual facts of the case hence the assessment/addition is unjustified, incorrect and illegal. 7. That in any view of the matter interest charged under different sections of the income tax Act is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. That in any view of the matter the appellant reserves his right to amend or take any further ground of appeal before hearing of the appeal.” 2. We have heard the learned AR as well as learned DR and gone through the impugned order of the CIT(A). At the outset, we note that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte in limine as under:- “In the circumstances, it appears that the appellant is not interested in pursuing its appeal despite several opportunities and time allowed to it. Hence, the appeal petition is decided on the basis of material available on record. I have gone through the grounds of appeal as well as the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. No worthwhile facts are found mentioned therein which could lead me to understand the grievances arising from the grounds of appeal. Even though, I am not required to give separate reasons for confirming the order of the Assessing Officer as per the ratio of the judgment in the case of Anil Goel vs. CIT (Appeals-I), Ludhiana (2008) 306 ITR 212 (P&H). xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The A.O. in the order has elaborately discussed this issues and no infirmity is found in the order. No material has been produced by the appellant to show that the order of the A.O. is incorrect. The Assessing officer’s order is confirmed.” ITA No. 212/Alld/2017 Sri Hari Shankar Mishra 3 3. Thus as nobody has attended the proceedings before the CIT(A) despite 12 opportunities were granted the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal summarily without adjudication of the issues on merits. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is not in conformity with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merits by a speaking order after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 01.06.2022 on conclusion of hearing. Sd/- Sd/- RAMIT KOCHAR VIJAY PAL RAO (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Dated: 01.06.2022 sh Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant –Sri. Hari Shankar Mishra 2. Respondent –ACIT-III, Mirzapur 3. CIT(A), Allahabad 4. CIT 5. DR - By order Sr. P.S.