M/s Mustang Leather Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur V. Inocme Tax Officer-6(1), Kanpur

ITA 372/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 37223714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.372/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(1), KANPUR VS M/S MUSTANG LEATHER PVT. LTD. 39, FACTORY AREA, FAZALGANJ, KANPUR. 208012 PAN A AAC M 9812 F (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR RESPONDENT BY 16 / 10 /2015 DATE OF HEARING 21/ 10 /2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JM. 1. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, PASSED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE, ASSAIL ING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) MAINLY ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UND ER:- 01. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DECIDING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUAT E OPPORTUNITY BEING HEARDTO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND BE QUASHED AND PENALTY OF RS.4,84,28 9/- IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IT. ACT, 196 1 BE DELETED. 02. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND I N LAW IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.4,84,289/- UNDE R SECTION 271 (1 )(C) OF THE IT. ACT, 1961 2 03. BECAUSE THERE BEING NEITHER CONCEALMENT O F INCOME, NOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.30,500/- UNDER SECTION 271 (1 )(C) OF THE ACT. 04. BECAUSE ON A PROPER CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT WOULD BE FOUND THAT T HE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS OF THE CA SE AND HAS ARBITRARILY HELD THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR PENALT Y UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AND THEREBY ERRED IN UPHOLDING TH E LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 05. BECAUSE IN ANY CASE AND IN ALL CIRCUMSTAN CES, OF THE CASE, PENALTY IMPOSED IS BAD IN LAW AND BE DELETED. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ATTENTION WAS INVI TED TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED DATES OF HEARING OF NOTICE BUT HAS NOT RECORDED ANY FACT WIT H REGARD TO SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL SUMMARILY WITHOUT DEALING THIS ISSUES ON MERIT. THE REFORE, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. 3. LD. DR SIMPLY PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ), WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED VARIOUS DATES OF ISSUANCE OF NO TICE BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN RECORDED IN RESPECT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HE ARING UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT AF FORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASI DE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (A.K. GARODIA ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21/10/2015 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. RE GISTRAR