Anil Kumar Gupta, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer- 2(1), Kanpur

ITA 482/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4819 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

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.482/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), KANPUR VS. ANIL KUMAR GUPTA 110/14, NEHRU NAGAR, KANPUR PAN AANPG 6936 G (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) NONE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR RESPONDENT BY 11 /01/2016 DATE OF HEARING 13/01/2016 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)-I, KANPUR. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 11.01.2015, B UT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED. ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL, WE FIND THAT THIS APPEAL CAN BE DISPOSED OF EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL WA S HEARD EX-PARTE. 3. ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF THIS APPEAL EXPARTE WITHOUT AFFORDI NG PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE, THE MATTER MAY BE 2 RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO ADJ UDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD T O THE ASSESSEE. 3. LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) IN THE AFORESAID CASE, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY RECORDED IN HIS FIRST PARA DIFFERENT DATES OF HEARING FIXED BY HIM BUT HE HAS NOT RECORDED CATEGO RICALLY WITH RESPECT TO SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RE STORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 13 TH JANUARY, 2016 AKS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR