Satya Prakash Gupta, Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

ITA 307/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 30723714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

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 ITA NO.307/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1996-97 SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA PROP. D. R. INDUSTRIES 113/14-B, SWAROOP NAGAR KANPUR V. DCIT RANGE II KANPUR PAN:ABZPG5991Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A PP ELLANT B Y :SHRI. S. A GG RAWAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 06.06.2013 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT: 07.08.2013 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY TH E ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFORMING THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271( 1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFOR E, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. :-2-: 3. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OT HER HAND, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS AFFORDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FORCED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AN D WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. IN HI S ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED THAT VARIOUS NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT HE HAS NOWHERE IN HIS ORDER MENTIONED WITH REGARD TO SERVIC E OF LAST NOTICE. THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT PROCEED EX-PARTE WITHOUT ESTAB LISHING THAT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESS EE. IN THIS REGARD, NO SPECIFIC FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT SINC E PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE QUASI CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE SHOULD BE AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE SET ASIDE HIS ORDER AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTIO N TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSU E OF PENALTY AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXTEND CO-O PERATION TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND TO MAKE HIS APPEARANCE AS AND WHEN DESIRED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN TH E OPEN COURT ON 7.8.2013. SD/- SD/- [PRAMOD KUMAR] [S UNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:7.8.2013 JJ:2806 :-3-: COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR