1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.345 & 346/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHAHJAHANPUR VS ALOK ANCHAL, H.NO.81, JHANDA KALAN, SHAHJAHANPUR PAN AEFAA 3638 F (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI SANJAY SAXENA, FCA APPELLANT BY SHRI RAJNISH YADAV, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY 27/07/2016 DATE OF HEARING 27 / 0 7 /201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER: MAHAVIR PRASAD, JM. 1. THESE APPEAL ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), BAREILLY. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF THIS APPE ALS EXPARTE WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEALS ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE CIT( A) IN THE AFORESAID CASES, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY RECORDED IN HIS SECOND PARA DIFFERENT DATES OF HEARING FIXED BY HIM BUT HE HAS NOT RECORDED CATEGORICALLY 2 WITH RESPECT TO SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING. IN TH E LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECT ION TO READJUDICATE THE APPEALS AFRESH ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (P.K. BANSAL) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27/07/2016 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REG ISTRAR