Panjab National Bank, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer-(TDS)-II, Kanpur

ITA 484/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70576 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRADEEP MEHROTRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKN BENCH A : LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO S . 484, 485 & 486 /LKW/201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S:1997 - 98 TO 1999 - 2000 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - II, DY. KA PARAO, KANPUR. KANPUR. PAN:KNPPO1442A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRADEEP MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 28 / 11 /2013 DAT E OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/12/2013 ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: TH ESE APPEAL S ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT(A) ON COMMON GROUNDS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER UPHOLDING THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED U/S. 201(I)/201(1A)/206C(7) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PASSED AFTER A LAPS OF MORE THAN TEN YEARS WITHOUT ADJUCATING THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LEARNE D CIT(A). 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE 2 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AGREED FOR DISMISSAL OF APPEAL ON 31 - 05 - 2012 WHEN HE APPEARED TO ARGU THE APPEAL. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT DEDUCTED AND PAID DUE TAXES ON THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID TO THE DEPOSITORS AS AND WHERE APPLICA BLE. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEALS, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IN FACT THE CIT(A) HAS FIXED ON THREE DATES OF HEARING AND THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT FOR FURNISHING THE RELEVANT INFORMATION. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS NOT ENTERTAINED BY THE CIT(A) AND HE DISPOSED OF THE APPEALS EX - PARTE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEALS ON MERIT THOUGH HE WAS REQUIRED TO DO AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, HIS ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE M ATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 3. LEARNED D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS IN LIMINE WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE ON MERIT THOUGH H E WAS REQUIRED TO DO SO UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS 3 FILE FOR READJUDICATION OF THE APPEALS ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO EXTENT ALL SORT OF CO - OPERATION TO CIT(A) AND APPEAR BEFORE HIM TO PURSUE THE APPEAL EFFECTIVELY , AS AND WHEN DESIRED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/12/2013 ) SD/. SD/. (A. K. GARODIA) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18/12/2013 *CL SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR