Jagdamba Prasad Yadav, Lucknow V. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Lucknow

ITA 238/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 23823714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R R N SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHYAM LALL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 142(1); 144

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 NO.238 TO 240/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 -2010 JAGDAMBA PRASAD YADAV LUCKNOW VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3) LUCKNOW PAN NO.APQPB6013D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. SHYAM LALL, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. R.R. N. SHUKLA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 16 07 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30 07 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV THESE ARE ASSESSEE'S APPEALS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT (A)I, LUCKNOW DATED 22.11.2013 FOR A.Y. 2009 2010 CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS 14,78,000/- MADE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(2), LUCKNOW. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS THERE WAS NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER WHEREIN ON PAGE 5 HE HAS STATED THAT THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM SERIOUS ILLNESS AND WAS HOSPITALIZED FOR MORE THAN 8 TO 9 MONTHS. AS DURING THE PERIOD NO ONE WAS AVAILABLE TO LOOK AFTER HIM, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO SHIFT HIS FAMILY TO HIS ANCESTRAL VILLAGE. THE ASSESSEE HAD TO SPEND TWO AND HALF YEARS OUT OF LUCKNOW CITY. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NONE TO PURSUE THE MATTER BEFORE THE AO. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED 2 THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE GENUINE PERSONAL DIFFICULTIES FACED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AN ADDITION OF RS. 14,78,000/- HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE ENTIRE BANK DEPOSITS AS PER THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN U/S 285A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. A FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS 25,000/- HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI A AS THE PROOF THEREOF WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 5. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE EX-PARTE WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LD CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT DE NOVO AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED 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: 30 TH JULY, 2015 SS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR