M/s Chetak Gramudyog Sansthan, Kanpur V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-i, Kanpur

ITA 244/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78454 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.244/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003 - 2004 M/S CHETAK GRAMUDYOG SANSTHAN, 89/194, BANSMANDI, KANPUR. PAN:AAATC7833M VS. A.C.I.T. - I, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 16/04/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 6 / 0 4 / 2 0 1 4 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - II, KANPUR DATED 24/12/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04, INTER ALIA, ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN TAW & ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE F OLLOWING ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE ASSTT. : - ( A ) RS. 32,000/ - CREDIT BALANCES IN ACCOUNT OF AWADH PLASTIC INDUSTRIES & NARESH BAJPAI. ( B ) RS. 50,000/ - ADHOC ADDITION/ DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK/ ITS VALUATION ETC. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS UNJUST IFIED IN PASSING THE ORDER EX - PARTE WITHOUT CONSIDERING & EXAMINING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT ALLOWING PROPER & REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN RESPECT OF THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO, EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23B) OF THE ACT CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AS MENTIONED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIM. 2 4. THAT IN ANY CASE & WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS, THE QUANTUM OF ADDITIONS SUSTAINED ARE MUCH TOO HIGH & EXCESSIVE. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS AGAINST LAW, FACTS & PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 16 .0 4 .2014, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING . AN APPLICATION FOR AD JOURNMENT IS HOWEVER FILED WITH THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. 3. ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A), I FIND THAT NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CIT(A) HAS SUMMARILY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES ON MERIT. SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL SUMMARILY WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES ON MERIT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL ON MERIT AS THE CIT(A) IS NOT CONFERRED WITH THE POWE R UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TO DECIDE THE APPEAL SUMMARILY. I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES ON MERIT BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RE CEIPT OF THIS ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ( ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 6 / 0 4 / 2 0 1 4 ) SD/. [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 6 /04 /2014 *C.L. SINGH 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR