Khyati Multimedia & Entertainment Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2758/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6849 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, C BENCH (BEFORE S/SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT AND D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO.2758/AHD/2010 [ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-2007] KHYATI MULTIMEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT LTD. C/O. RAVI & DEV, CAS., 201, ARTH, B/H. A.K. PATEL HOUSE MITHAKHALI SIX ROADS AHMEDABAD 380 009. VS. ITO, WARD-5(1) SURAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI UMAIDSINGH BHATI REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH OJHA O R D E R PER BENCH: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XX, AHMEDABAD O UT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE GROUND NO.1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL R EAD AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN DIS MISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN DISMI SSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY IN THE FORM OF PERSONAL HEARING OR EVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FURNISH ING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. ITA NO.2758/AHD/2010 -2- 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTE D BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE THEN COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI JAYESH PARIKH APPEARED ON THE DATE OF HEARING AT 3: 00PM BUT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THEREAFTER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DECIDED THE MATTER EX- PARTE . IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE FURNISHED AFFI DAVIT OF SHRI JAYESH PARIKH. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTOR ED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, REL IED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED ARGUMENTS OF BOTH T HE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. SHRI JAYESH PARIKH, CA FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH HE HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD ENGAGED HIM FOR APPEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD. HE HAD APPEARED AND FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON THE DATE OF HEARING I. E. 6-7-2010 AT 3:00PM. BUT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE. TH E PA OF THE CIT(A) INFORMED HIM THAT THE CIT(A) WOULD BE BACK BY 5:00P M. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS TO ATTEND ANOTHER PROFESSIONAL ASSIGNM ENT, HE DID NOT WAIT IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT(A). HE HAS GIVEN HIS MOBILE PHONE NUMBER TO THE PA TO THE CIT(A) AND REQUESTED HIM TO INFORM HIM AS SOON AS THE CIT(A) RETURNS TO THE OFFICE. SINCE HE DID NOT RECEIVE AN Y MESSAGE FROM THE PA ITA NO.2758/AHD/2010 -3- OF THE CIT(A), HE DID NOT GO BACK TO THE OFFICE OF THE CIT(A). CONSIDERING THE ABOVE AVERMENTS IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI JAYESH PARIKH, IN OUR OPINION, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE. WE DIRECT HIM TO ALLOW ADEQUATE OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER RE-ADJUDICATE THE MATTE R IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DEEMED TO BE ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15 TH APRIL, 2011 SD/- SD/- (D.K. TYAGI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGARWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT PLACE : AHMEDABAD DATE : 15-04-2011 C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD