Ravindra Kumar Duggal, Raibareli V. ITO, Raibareli

ITA 429/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 42923714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Right to appeal

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A - BENCH, LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.429(LKW.)/2011 A.Y.: 2005-06 RAVINDRA KUMAR DUGGAL, VS. THE ITO, SUPER MARKET, RAEBARELI. RAEBARELI. PAN ADOPD4345G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH YADAV, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 17.8.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.8.2011 O R D E R PER H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-II, LUCKNOW DATED 31.3.2011 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. AFTER CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX PARTE. FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. IN OUR OPINION, THE 2 LD.CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. IN THE CASE OF RADHIKA CHARAN BANERJEE VS. SAMBALPUR MUNICIPALITY, AIR (1979) ORISSA 69, THE HON'BLE ORISSA HIGH COURT HELD THAT A RIGHT OF APPEAL WHEREVER CONFERRED INCLUDES A RIGHT OF BEING AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LANGUAGE CONFERRING SUCH RIGHT. THAT IS A PART AND PARCEL OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WHERE AN AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO ACT IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITY, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO GIVE THE APPELLANT AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. THUS, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE THINK IT PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN TOTO AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) IS ALSO DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL PREFERABLY WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER. AT THE SAME TIME, WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO CO-OPERATE AND ATTEND THE HEARING WHICH MAY BE FIXED BY THE LD.CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, NO FINDINGS ARE BEING GIVEN ON MERITS. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.8.2011. SD. SD. (N.K.SAINI) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT AUGUST 17TH ,2011. COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. SRIVASTAVA A.R.,ITAT, LUCKNOW. 3