M/s. A.V.Agro Products Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kanpur

ITA 304/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 30423714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A : LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 304 /LKW/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 2010 M/S A. V. AGRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., VS. DY. C.I.T. - 5, 51/58 - A, SHAKKAR PATTI, KANPUR. KANPUR. PAN:AACCAA4891J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 0 3 /0 6 /201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :07/08/2013 ORDE R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS IN DECIDING THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO FACTS, BAD IN AND BE SET ASIDE. 3. BECAUSE THERE BEING NO SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL DECIDED EX - PARTE IS BAD IN LAW. 2 4. BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. 5. BECAUSE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT PASSING THE SPEAKING ORDER AND WITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. BECAUSE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING AND CONFIRMING A SUM OF RS.20,42,129/ - OUT OF 'CHEMICAL CONSUMED' ON AD HOC BASIS . 6. BECAUSE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. IT WAS ARGUED AT THE THRESHOLD THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDED THE APPEAL SUMMARILY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) HA S ISSUED ONLY TWO NOTICES AS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN STATED WITH REGARD TO THEIR SERVICE UPON THE ASSESSEE. T HE CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT GETTING THE NOTICE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO HIM FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LEARNED D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS ISSUED ONLY TWO NOTICES DATED 24/07/2012 AND 18/01/2013. 3 NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ORDER WITH REGARD TO THE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING UPON THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT A PPEARS THAT CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL EX - PARTE WITHOUT SERVI NG THE NOTICE OF HEARING UPON THE ASSESSEE. ON MERIT HE HAS DISPOSED OF THE ISSUE IN FIVE LINES. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM AND HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFORD ING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/08/2013 ) SD/. SD/. ( PRAMOD KUMAR) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 07/08/2013 *SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR