M/s U.P State Handloom Corporation Ltd., Kanpur V. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur

ITA 214/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 92198 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: Y P SRIVASTA VA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 14A

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.214/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010 - 2011 A.C.I.T. - 6, KANPUR. VS M/S U. P. STATE HANDLOOM CORPORATION LTD., 117/53 - A, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:AAACU2445C (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI PRADEEP SETH, C.A. APPELLANT BY SHRI Y. P. SRIVASTAVA, D. R. RESPONDENT BY 22/06/2015 DATE OF HEARING 30 /06/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - II, KANPUR DATED 19/01/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX - PARTE FOR DEFAULT IN A SUMMARY MANNER WITHOUT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE THE STATUTORY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 2. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN PROCEEDING TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX - PARTE MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT THE NOTICES DATED 02.12.2014 AND 15.12.2014 WERE ISSUED FOR COMPLIANCE ON 12.12.2014 AND 24.12.2014 RESPECTIVELY BUT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED TILL DATE, WITHOUT VERIFYING WHETHER THE NOT ICES SAID TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED HAD BEEN DULY SERVED ON 2 THE ASSESSEE OR NOT, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE'S RECORDS WERE NEVER RECEIVED BY IT. 3. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERIT A S REQUIRED BY LAW AND NOT STATING THE FACTS REGARDING EACH GROUND OF APPEAL NOR HIS DECISION ON SUCH GROUND NOR DETAILED REASON FOR HIS DECISION IN RESPECT OF EACH GROUND AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN IGNORING THE FACTS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL WHICH CONSTITUTED MATERIAL FO R DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 5. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE. (I) DISALLOWANCE OF A SUM OF RS.1,81,98,562/ - BEING INTEREST PAYABLE ON LOAN FROM NOIDA WITHOUT P ROPERLY APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 10.12.2012 AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED THEREWITH. (IIA) DISALLOWANCE OF A SUM OF RS.2,31,472/ - U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WITHOUT PROPERLY APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE ASSESSEE'S WRITTEN REPLY DATED 05.11.2012 AND IN MISINTERPRETING THE ABOVE PROVISION. (IIB) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE IN CONFIRMING THE MIS - CALCULATION OF DISALLOWANCE BY MISINTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D. 6. THE APPELLATE ORDER IS ARBITRARY, UNJUST, EXCESSIVE, BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NOTICES ISSUED BY CIT(A) WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, NO COMPLIANCE COULD BE MADE AND EX - PARTE ORDER WAS PASSED BY CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION. 3 4. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUB MISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IN PARA NO. 2, IT IS NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT TWO NOTICES DATED 02/12/2014 AND 15/12/2014 WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPLIANCE ON 12/12/2014 AND 24/12/2014 RESPECTIVELY BUT NO COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN MADE. THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICES WERE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. IT IS THE CLAIM OF LEARNED A .R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE NOTICES WERE NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. BE THAT AS IT MAY BUT WE FEEL THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE M ATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE WE FEEL THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES WERE NOT PROVIDED BY CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT( A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN CO URT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 /06/2015 *C.L.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 ASSTT. REGISTRAR