Amarjeet Singh, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer, Kanpur

ITA 398/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 39823714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 398/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 ITO, WARD 2(1), KANPUR. VS AMARJEET SINGH, 52/2, BLOCK NO.6, GOVIND NAGAR, KANPUR PAN ANYPS 8605 A (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) NONE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR RESPONDENT BY 15/09/2015 DATE OF HEARING 18 /0 9 /2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JM. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, DEHRADUN INTER ALIA ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) I, DEHRADUN HAS ERRED IN PASSING EX-PARTE APPEAL ORDER DISMISSING T HE APPEAL. 2. THAT THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) I, DEHRADUN HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID. A O IN INITIA TION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 ARE BAD IN LAW AS THE SAME WERE INITIATED W ITHOUT REASONS/IMPROPER REASONS. 3. THAT THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) I, DEHRADUN HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID. A O IN NOT FOL LOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS OF HON'BLE ITAT MAKING THE ENTIRE PROC EEDINGS BAD. 4. THAT THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) I, DEHRADUN HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID. A O IN NOT APP RECIATING THAT THERE WAS NO SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN MAD E ON THE ASSESSEE. 2 5. THAT ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ARE ILLEGAL BECAUSE THER E ARE NUMEROUS FLAWS IN INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS. 6. THAT THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) I, DEHRADUN HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID. A O IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 132400.00 ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED MONEY INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF-SHARES. 7. THAT THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) I, DEHRADUN HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID. A O IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 137878.00 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED CASH PAYMENTS I N EXCESS OF LIMIT PROVIDED U/S 40A (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961. 8. THAT THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) I, DEHRADUN HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID. A O IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 60000.00 ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES WITH OUT BRINGLTRRANYTHING ON RECORD SUGGESTING OR SUPPORTIN G HIS ADDITION. 9. THAT THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) I, DEHRADUN HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE OBSERVATION OF ID. A O THAT THERE IS CASH PURCHASE IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (3) IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. 10. THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT VALID IN THE EYE S OF LAW SO THE CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS. 11. THAT THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) I, DEHRADUN HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID. A 0 IN NOT ENT ERTAINING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDING THE ISSUES ON MERIT. 12. THAT THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) I, DEHRADUN HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID. A 0 IN NOT ALL OWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 13. THAT THE IMPUGNED APPEAL ORDER; ASSESSMENT ORDE R AS WELL AS ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE SAME ARE BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS AND APPROPRIATE RELIEF DESERVES TO BE A LLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. THAT THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) I, DEHRADUN HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID. A O IN INITIAT ING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND DEFAULT IN COMPLYING THE NOTICES. 15. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO INTRODUCE, WI THDRAW OR MODIFY ANY GROUND OF APPEAL WITH THE KIND PERMISSIONS OF YOUR HONOUR. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 15.09.2015 AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR SEEKI NG ADJOURNMENT. ON 3 PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL EX- PARTE WITHOUT DEALING THE ISSUE ON MERIT. IN THE LI GHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO FRUITFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED B Y GRANTING AN ADJOURNMENT. WE, THEREFORE, REJECT THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AND HEARD THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUE WAS HEARD. 3. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT IN THE ENTIRE ORDER, THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED GROUNDS OF APPEAL RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN FEW LINES HE DISPOSED OF APPEAL HAVING OBSERVED THAT NOBODY HAS RESPONDED THE NOTICE OF FINAL HEARING. IT IS SETTLE D POSITION OF LAW THAT CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERIT EVEN IF NOBODY APPEAR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE INCOM E TAX ACT, WHICH ENTAIL THE CIT(A) TO DISMISS THE APPEAL SUMMARILY. WE ACCORDIN GLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WI TH A DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM ON MERIT AFRESH BY PA SSING A REASONED ORDER AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS STANDS ALLOWED 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: 18/09/2015 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. R EGISTRAR