Shri Vimal Kumar Gupta, V. Income Tax Officer,

ITA 61/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9118 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K DEY
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIRAKESHGARG
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.61/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI VIMAL KUMAR GUPTA, PURANAGANJ, RAMPUR. VS ITO, WARD -II RAMPUR. PAN NO.ABVPG9145Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRIRAKESHGARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K. DEY, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 15 01 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15 01 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV : THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A), INTER AILAON FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THAT THE LOWER COURT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 250 DATED 03.10.2013 FIXING THE APPEAL FOR 15.10.2013 WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE ACT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ARBITRARY IN ADDITION OF INCOME BY APPLYING THE NOT PROFIT 8% AS AGAINST SHOWN BY --2-- APPELLANT AT 4%. THE INCOME SHOWN BY APPELLANT IS QUITE REASONABLE AND MAY KINDLY BE ACCEPTED. 3. THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.66,604/- UNDER T5HE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY THE ACCESSING OFFICER. THE HOUSING LOAN WAS AVAILED FOR USING SUCH HOUSE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE. 4. THAT THE LOWER COURT SHOULD HAVE GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT FOR HEARING THE APPEAL. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT, THE CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT HE HAS FIXED THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON ONE DATE ONLY. WITHOUT VERYFYING THE FACTUM OF SERVICE, HE DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) MAY BE SET SIDE AND APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED TO HIM FOR ITS READJUDICATION. 3. THE LD.D.R. DID NOT DISPUTE THE FACT. 4. HAVING CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT HE HAS FIXED ONE DATE ONLY AND WITHOUT ENSURING THE SERVICE OF NOTICE, HE DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET SIDE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. --3-- 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/- SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23RD JANUARY, 2015 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR