Smt. Sushma Jain, Lucknow V. Income Tax Officer, Range- 1(4), Lucknow

ITA 431/LKW/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0912 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.431/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.431/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 SMT. SUSHMA JAIN, 2/131, VIJAY KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AVNPJ 9663 N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-I, LUCKNOW DATED 01/08/2016 PERTAINI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. I NOTED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED EX-PARTE ORDER AS ACCORDING TO HIM, NOBODY HAS APPEARED ON THE DATE W HEN THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE HIM. FROM THE ORDER OF CI T(A), IT IS CLEAR THAT CIT(A) HAS ISSUED MANY NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPLIANCE AGAINST WHICH NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED NOR FILED WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS AND ULTIMATELY CIT(A) PASSED THE EX-PARTE ORDER. HOWEVE R, I FEEL THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS LEAR NED CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. THE PROVISION OF SECT ION 250 WHICH DEALS WITH APPELLANT BY SHRI SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, C.A. RESPONDENT BY S HRI C. K. SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 15/11/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20 / 11 /201 8 I.T.A. NO.431/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 2 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 OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/11 /2018) SD/. ( T. S. KAPOOR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:20/11/2018 *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