Range Gowda , Hassan V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Hassan

ITA 2849/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8655 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2018
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMA MEENAKSHI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 2849 /BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 14 - 15 SHRI RANGE GOWDA, PADUVALAHIPPE VILLAGE, HOLENARASIPURATQ., HASSAN 573 211. PAN: BPGPR2721M VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, HASSAN. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. SUMAN LUNKAR, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PADMA M EENAKSHI, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 0 6 . 1 2 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 . 1 2 .2018 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME I S DIRECTED AGAINST THEORDER OF LD. CIT(A), MYSORE DATED 23.07.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 15. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEEARE AS UNDER. 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS), MYSURU IS BAD IN LAW, VOID AB-INITIO, AN D IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE GRO UND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT REMOVED THE DEFICIENCY POINTED OU T. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY LETTER POINTING OUT THE DEFICI ENCY AND IN ANY CASE THERE BEING NO DEFICIENCY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS PA SSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS BAD IN LAW AND IS TO BE QUASHED. 3. IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN SERVING THE COPY OF THE ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE PASSED IN THE CASE OF AOP OF BOMMEGOW DA AND RANGEGOWDA ON THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT DENIES T HE LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED AS SUCH AND HENCE THE DEMAND NOTICE AND TH E ORDER SERVED ON THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND ON OTHER GROUNDS TO BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND ALSO THE A SSESSMENT ORDER SERVED ON THE APPELLANT BE QUASHED. ITA NO. 2849/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR O F ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT (A) IS EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. THE REAFTER SHE SUBMITTED THAT IN PARA NO. 3 OF HIS ORDER, IT IS NOTED BY CIT (A) THAT AS PER THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30.06.2017, THE DISPUTED DEMAND OF RS. 19,900 /- WAS MADE U/S. 156 OF THE ACT IN PAN: AACAB6664N IN THE NAME OF AN AOP ST YLED AS AOP OF BOMMEGOWDA AND RANGEGOWDA BUT THE APPEAL WAS FILE D BY ANOTHER PERSON SHRI RANGEGOWDA HAVING PAN: BPGPR2721M IN HIS STATU S AS AN INDIVIDUAL. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE ON THIS BASIS THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON ON WHOM THE DEMAND WAS M ADE BY THE AO AND THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO DISPUTED THE DEMAND IN A PPEAL ARE DIFFERENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAS RAIS ED THE DEMAND ON THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CAPACITY AS AOP ALONG WITH SHRI BOM MEGOWDA BUT SINCE NO SUCH AOP IS IN EXISTENCE, THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE WITH HIS PAN. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN ANY CASE, THE ISSUE SHOULD BE DECIDED ON MERIT AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF GOING INTO TECHNICA LITIES AND FOR THIS, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) F OR DECISION ON MERIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT IN PARA NO. 2 OF HIS ORDER, IT IS STATED BY CIT (A) THAT NONE APPEARED IN APPEL LATE PROCEEDINGS BUT HOW MANY NOTICES WERE ISSUED BY HIM AND WHETHER THE NOT ICES WERE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE OR NOT IS NOT COMING OUT FROM HIS ORDER. H ENCE I FEEL THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO C IT (A) FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. HENCE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTE R BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 21 ST DECEMBER, 2018. /MS/ ITA NO. 2849/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.