M/s Amit Industries, Pilibhit V. Income Tax Officer-2(4), Pilibhit

ITA 495/LKW/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0914 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.495/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 M/S AMIT INDUSTRIES, GOLA ROAD, BILSANDA, DISTT. PILIPHIT. PAN:AACFA 9335 N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(4), PILIBHIT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 17/08/2017 PERTAINING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2014- 2015. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED A. R. INVITED OUR ATTENTI ON TO THE FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A DELAY OF 218 DAYS IN FILING THE AP PEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE CONDONATION APPLICATION ALONGWITH THE APPEAL DULY SUPPORTED BY SWORN IN AFFIDAVIT STATING THEREIN THE REASON FO R DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND BEING CONVINCED WITH THE EX PLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE DELAY WAS CONDONED AND LEARNED A. R. WAS ASKED TO ARGUE ON MERITS. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. I NOTED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS P ASSED THE EX-PARTE APPELLANT BY SHRI K. R. RASTOGI, C. A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI C. K. SINGH, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 15/11/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/11/2018 2 ORDER AS ACCORDING TO HIM, NOBODY HAS APPEARED ON T HE DATES WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE HIM. FROM THE O RDER OF CIT(A), IT IS APPARENT THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ISSUED TWO NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED NOR FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS AND ULTIMATELY THE CIT(A) PASSED THE EX-PARTE ORDER. HOWEVER, 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 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 WITHOU T BEING HEARD THE PARTY OR WITHOUT GIVING HIM THE PROPER AND SUFFICIE NT OPPORTUNITY. I AM OF THE VIEW FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS BY THE CIT(A). I, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE A ND 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 SU FFICIENT OPPORTUNITY 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 D ISPOSING OF THE APPEALS. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/11 /2018) SD/. ( T. S. KAPOOR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:20/11/2018 *SINGH 3 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