M/S RAJ kUMAR SINGH, Lucknow V. ITO-2(2), Lucknow

ITA 275/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 27523714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 1986-1987
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Right to appeal

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.275/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1986-87 M/S RAJ KUMAR SINGH & COMPANY 5, PARK ROAD, HAZRATGANJ, LUCKNOW V. ITO II(2) LUCKNOW PAN:AADFR4644J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. RAJESH YADAV, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 16.08.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.08.2011 O R D E R PER H. L. KARWA: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I, LUCKNOW DATED 18.1.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986-87. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I, LUCKNOW IS ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-I FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IT WAS QUITE A COMPLICATED CASE INVOLVING SEVERAL CONTENTIOUS POINTS WHICH :-2-: REQUIRED CAREFUL STUDY AND CONSIDERATION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE TIME ALLOWED BY HIM WAS INSUFFICIENT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO DEAL WITH VARIOUS ISSUES MADE BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND HAS DISPOSED OFF THE ENTIRE APPEAL IN A VERY SUMMARY MANNER BY PASSING A TOTALLY NON- SPEAKING ORDER. IT IS RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL MAY BY SET-ASIDE/RESTORED TO HIM FOR FRESH DISPOSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4. THE APPELLANT SEEKS PERMISSION TO MODIFY AND/OR ADD ANY OTHER GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MIGHT REQUIRE OR JUSTIFY. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX PARTE. AFTER PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. IN THE CASE OF RADHIKA CHARAN BANERJEE VS. SAMBALPUR MUNICIPALITY, AIR (1979) ORISSA 69, THE HON'BLE ORISSA HIGH COURT HELD THAT A RIGHT OF APPEAL WHEREVER CONFERRED INCLUDES A RIGHT OF BEING AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LANGUAGE CONFERRING SUCH RIGHT. THAT IS A PART AND PARCEL OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WHERE AN AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO ACT IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITY, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO GIVE THE APPELLANT AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. THUS, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE THINK IT PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN TOTO AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE :-3-: ALSO DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL PREFERABLY WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF ORDER. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO CO-OPERATE AND ATTEND THE HEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 3.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, NO FINDINGS ARE BEING GIVEN ON MERITS. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.8.2011. SD/- SD/- [ N. K. SAINI] [H. L. KARWA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:16.8.2011 JJ:1608 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR