ITA NO 341 OF 2013 BARTRONICS INDIA LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.341/HYD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) M/S. BARTRONICS INDIA LTD HYDERABAD PAN: AAACB 8231 F VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO FOR REVENUE : SMT. NIVEDITA BISWAR, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 11.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT : 29 .07.2016 O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2008-09. IN T HIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF TH E CIT (A) IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO U/S 115WE OF THE I.T. ACT WITHOUT HEARING THE AS SESSEE. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN O UR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) WHEREIN IN TH E CAUSE TITLE AND THE TABLE THEREUNDER, IT IS MENTIONED THAT NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE, BUT ONLY ADJOURNMENT LETTERS WERE REC EIVED FROM THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. IT IS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THAT NON ATTENDANCE ON THE DATES GIVEN TH EREIN ARE ONLY DUE TO THE TIME BARRING RETURNS BEING FINALISED AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL AND THE ABSENCE WAS NOT WILLFUL OR WANTON. FURTHER, HE ITA NO 341 OF 2013 BARTRONICS INDIA LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 3 HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE MERITS OF THE C ASE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE FRINGE BENEFIT TAX IS NOT AT A LL ATTRACTED IN THE CASE BEFORE US. HE, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE CIT (A) BE DIRECTED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A FAIR O PPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THE LEARNED DR, HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITED THAT THE FBT PROVISI ONS ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. 3. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT NONE HAD APPEARED FOR THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND THEREFORE, THE CIT (A) HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE THAT THE PARTIES CONCE RNED SHOULD BE HEARD BEFORE TAKING A DECISION. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE HEARING DATES WERE SPREAD OVER A SHORT PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS A ND THE ASSESSEE HAD CLEARLY FILED APPLICATIONS FOR ADJOURN MENTS ON SUCH DATES OF HEARING. THE CIT (A) HAS REJECTED THE ASSE SSEES APPLICATIONS FOR ADJOURNMENTS AND HAS PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL J USTICE, THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN ANOTHER CHANCE TO REPRESENT B EFORE THE CIT (A). IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DEEM IT FIT AND P ROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DISPOSE OF THE A PPEAL ON MERITS, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE, A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HE ARING. ITA NO 341 OF 2013 BARTRONICS INDIA LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 3 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JULY, 2016. S D/ - S D/ - (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 29 TH JULY, 2016. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1. P. MURALI & CO. CAS, 6-3-655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 500082 2. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3) HYDERAB AD 3. CIT(A) - II HYDERABAD 4. CIT-1 HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER