Vinay Kumar Shukla, Lucknow V. ITO, Ward-1(4), Lucknow

ITA 37/LKW/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7534 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 147; 69A

Judgement Text

I.T.A. No.37/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.37/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Vinay Kumar Shukla, Bhainsa Mau, Baxi Ka Talab, Lucknow. PAN:CUDPS0801a Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Lucknow. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M. (A) Appeal vide I.T.A. No.37/Lkw/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015-16 against impugned appellate order dated 09/11/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057844126(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order, which is unlawful, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice. Appellant by Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Revenue by Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT (D.R.) I.T.A. No.37/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 2 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs.84,14,300/- made by Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 69A of Income-tax Act. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs.18,44,885/- made by Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 69A of Income-tax Act. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs.5,999/- made by Ld. Assessing Officer. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing assessment order which is contrary to the facts and law.” (B) In this case assessment order dated 15/02/2023 was passed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act” for short) vide DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1049763126(1). In the aforesaid assessment order, the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.1,06,79,314/- as against returned income of Rs.4,14,130/-. The additions made in the assessment order included an amount of Rs.84,14,300/- on account of unexplained money, an amount of Rs.18,44,885/- on account of investment in FDR and an amount of Rs.5,999/- on account of interest income. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 09/11/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057844126(1), the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by learned CIT(A). The present appeal, before us, has been filed I.T.A. No.37/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 3 by the assessee against the aforesaid appellate order dated 09/11/2023 of learned CIT(A). (B.1) On perusal of the impugned appellate order dated 09/11/2023 of the learned CIT(A), we find that the order has been passed by learned CIT(A) ex-parte qua the appellant assessee. We further find on perusal of the impugned order of learned CIT(A) that the assessee’s appeal has been dismissed in a summary manner and not through a speaking order. While dismissing the assessee’s appeal, the learned CIT(A) merely commented – “During the course of appellate proceeding the appellant has not given any further information on this issue. He asked for adjournment from time to time, it seems that he is not interested in submitting any reply. Hence the addition made by the A.O. is confirmed. This ground is dismissed.” Under section 250(6) of the IT Act, the learned CIT(A) is duty bound to dispose of the appeal through a speaking order stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. The summary order passed by learned CIT(A) is clearly deficient having regard to the requirements of aforementioned section 250(6) of the IT Act. (C) We also find on perusal of the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) that the assessee was not provided reasonable time to make submissions. Notice dated 25/10/2023 was issued to the assessee wherein compliance date was indicated as 03/11/2023. The intervening period between 25/10/2023 and 03/11/2023, having regard to specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, was not sufficient to make compliance with the requirements of learned CIT(A). I.T.A. No.37/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 4 (D) The aforesaid facts of this specific case were also taken notice of, by representatives of both sides at the time of hearing before us. The appellant side was represented by Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. and Revenue was represented by Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT (D.R.). The learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned appellate order dated 09/11/2023 of learned CIT(A) should be set aside and the issues in dispute should be restored to the filed of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned Sr. D.R. for Revenue expressed no objection to this. (E) As we have noted earlier in this order, the impugned order passed by learned CIT(A) is deficient having regard to requirements of section 250(6) of the IT Act. We have also noted that the assessee was not provided reasonable time by the learned CIT(A). Moreover, representatives of both sides were in agreement, at the time of hearing before us, that the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) should be set aside and issues in dispute should be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (F) In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order dated 09/11/2023 of learned CIT(A) and we restore all the issues in dispute in the present appeal before us to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo appellate order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. I.T.A. No.37/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 5 (G) For statistical purposes the appeal is partly allowed. (Order was pronounced in the open court on 30/04/2024 after the conclusion of hearing.) Sd/. Sd/. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:30/04/2024 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., 5. CIT(A) Assistant Registrar