Smt. Saeeda Khatoon, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(4), Kanpur

ITA 566/LKW/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0916 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JIRENDRA KUMAR YADAV S HRI

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.566/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.566/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 SMT. SAEEDA KHATOON, MG 9/2, GANGA VIHAR COLONY, JAJMAU, KANPUR. PAN:APLPK 4968 K VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-I, KANPUR, DATED 10/05/2018 PERTAINING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 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 DATES WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE HIM. FROM THE ORDER OF CI T(A), IT IS APPARENT THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ISSUED TWO NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE H OWEVER, NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED NOR FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND ULTIMATELY THE CIT(A) PASSED THE EX-PARTE ORDER. HOWEVER, I FEEL THAT ON E MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS LEARNED CIT(A) H AS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 250 WHIC H DEALS WITH THE PROCEDURE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), ALLOWS A RIG HT TO AN ASSESSEE TO BE HEARD AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. EVEN THE N ATURAL JUSTICE DEMANDS APPELLANT BY SHRI JIRENDRA KUMAR YADAV, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY S HRI C. K. SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 16/11/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/11/2018 I.T.A. NO.566/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 2 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 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS 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