Khairabad Eye Hospital Society, Kanpur V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-I, Kanpur

ITA 350/LKW/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7467 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARISH GIDWANI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRADEEP SETH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.348 to 351/LKW/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Khairabad Eye Hospital Society 112/202, Swaroop Nagar Kanpur v. The Dy. CIT Circle 3 Kanpur TAN/PAN:AAATK3893P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Pradeep Seth, FCA Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 03 03 2022 Date of pronouncement: 07 03 2022 O R D E R PER BENCH: These are assessee’s appeals against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-II, Kanpur, all dated 30.12.2014, for Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 2. By virtue of the impugned orders, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeals for non-prosecution, observing that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The ld. CIT(A) has observed to have issued two notices each, fixing the dates of hearing and passed the order on 30.12.2014, dismissing the appeals qua the assessee. But, it is not clear from his orders whether notice of hearing was ever served upon the assessee. Such service of notices has, however, been disputed by the assessee. 3. Heard. We find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Moreover, Page 2 of 2 he has not decided the appeals after discussing in detail, his reasons for agreeing with the assessment orders. In this view of the matter, another opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the assessee to represent his case fully before the ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.) and ‘Ms. Swati Pawa vs. Dy. CIT’, 175 ITD 622 (Del)] and incumbent on the ld. CIT(A) to decide an appeals on merit even in the absence of any representation before them. 4. In view of the above, the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeals are treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07/03/2022. Sd/- Sd/- [T. S. KAPOOR] [A. D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:07/03/2022 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order Assistant Registrar