Amarnath Prasad, Muzaffarpur V. ITO, Ward-1, , Muzaffarpur

ITA 27/PAT/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9605 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: HITESH SUMAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH SMC , PATNA BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A M ITA NO. 2 7 /PAT./201 8, ASSTT. YEAR : 20 02 - 0 3 A MARNATH PRASAD, MUZAFFARPUR. I TO , WARD - 1, MUZAFFARPUR. (APPELLANT) (R ESPONDENT) PAN NO. A EKPP 5695J ASSESSEE BY : SH RI HITESH SUMAN, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. ABHAY KUMAR , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 09 .03 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 4 . 0 3 .201 8 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN A PPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11 . 11.2017 OF LD. CIT (A) , MUZAFFARPUR . 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE EX - PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE ISSUES ON MERIT. 3. FACTS OF THE CAS E IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME N 31.03.2003, DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.40,540/ - . LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS.3,98,225/ - BY MAKING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS, BY PASSING AN EX - PARTE ORDER U/S 144 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). ITA NO. 27 /PAT. /201 8 2 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A), WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN - LIMINE WIT HOUT DISCUSSING THE ISSUES ON ME RIT. 5. BE ING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NOT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. 6. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ALTHOUGH MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES WERE NOT COMPLIED. HOWEVER, NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT ANY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SERVED UPON HIM. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBO DY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. I, THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. (ORD E R PRONOUNCED IN THE COU RT ON 05 /0 3 /2018 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 27 /PAT. /201 8 3 DAT ED: 14 /03 /2018 S.SINHA * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR