M/s Balgovind Bhagwati Prasad, Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur

ITA 281/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 28123714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O N PATHAK
• Assessee Lawyers: NARPAT JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.281/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 M/S BALGOVIND BHAGWATI PRASAD 51/92, NAYAGANJ KANPUR V. DCIT-I KANPUR TAN/PAN:AAGFB1094L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. NARPAT JAIN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. O. N. PATHAK, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 30 07 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05 08 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) THE LEARNED C.I.T (A) WAS WRONG IN LAW & ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 03.12.2007 FOR A.Y. 2005-06:- (I) RS. 50000/- ADDITION U/S 69A FOR ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED MONEY. (II) RS. 564927/- DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS IN TRADING OF SOME KIRANA ITEMS. (2) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE CORRECTLY & THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY HIM IS UNJUSTIFIED. :- 2 -: (3) IN ANY CASE & WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS, THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED ARE MUCH TOO HIGH & EXCESSIVE. (4) THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS AGAINST LAW, FACTS & PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT NO NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FINALLY DECIDED THE APPEAL EX- PARTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO HIM FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. D.R. HAS SIMPLY PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARAGRAPH 2 OF HIS ORDER HAS MENTIONED THAT NOTICE DATED 15.10.2013, 9.12.2013 AND 30.1.2014 UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ARE ISSUED FOR ASSESSEES COMPLIANCE ON 25.10.2013, 16.12.2013 AND 11.2.2014 RESPECTIVELY, BUT WITH REGARD TO THE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING UPON THE ASSESSEE, NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, IT APPEARS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL WITHOUT GETTING THE NOTICE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO HIS FILE FOR RE-ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. :- 3 -: 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:5 TH AUGUST, 2015 JJ:3007 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR