Poonam Sabharwal, Raibareilly V. Income Tax Officer, Rai Bareilly

ITA 401/LKW/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5240 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.401/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.401/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 POONAM SABHARWAL, 72 FIROZE GANDHI NAGAR, RAEBARELI. PAN:AYJPS 3262 P VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAEBARELI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-II, LUCKNOW DATED 26/10/2017 PERTAIN ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. I NOTED THAT THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 121 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONDONATION APPLICATI ON DULY SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH HE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND BEING CONVINCED WITH THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, I CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 3. I NOTED THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE LEARNED CIT(A ) HAS PASSED EX-PARTE ORDER AS ACCORDING TO HIM, NOBODY HAS APPEARED ON T HE DATES WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE HIM. FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), IT IS APPARENT THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ISSUED VARIOUS NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT BY SHRI G. C. DOBRIYAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY S HRI C. K. SINGH, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 22/10/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22/10/2018 I.T.A. NO.401/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 2 HOWEVER, NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED NOR FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND ULTIMATELY THE CIT(A) PASSED THE EX-PARTE ORDER. H OWEVER, I FEEL THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. THE PROVISION OF SECT ION 250 WHICH DEALS WITH THE PROCEDURE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), ALLOWS A RIGHT TO AN ASSESSEE TO BE HEARD AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. EVEN TH E NATURAL JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT NO APPEAL SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF WITHOUT BEING HEARD THE PARTY OR WITHOUT GIVING HIM THE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORT UNITY. I AM OF THE VIEW FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T BEEN GIVEN PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE DISPOSING OF THE APPE AL BY THE CIT(A). I, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY TO BOTH THE PARTIES, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE CIT(A) SHALL REFIX THE SAID APPEAL AND DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER GIVING PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OP PORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AND NOT SEEK UNDUE ADJOURNMENT AND CO- OPERATE WITH LEARNED CIT(A) IN DISPOSING OF THE APP EAL. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/10 /2018) SD/. ( T. S. KAPOOR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:22/10/2018 *SINGH 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