Controller of Stores, Jhansi V. I.T.O.(TDS), Jhansi

ITA 63/AGR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 6320314 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: R K AGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 63/AGRA/2012 ASSTT. YEAR : 2009-10 CONTROLLER OF STORES, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, JHANSI TDS, JHANSI. (TAN: AGRC10553E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :S/SRI R.K. AGARWAL & RAHUL AGARWAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY :SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 19.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 19.07.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA DATED 03.10.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE A SSESSEE. IT WAS, THEREFORE, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAINLY IN LIMINE WITHOUT DECIDING T HE APPEAL ON MERITS. ACCORDING TO SECTION 250(6), THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL HAVE TO MEN TION POINT OF DETERMINATION IN ITA NO. 63/AGRA/2012 2 THE APPELLATE ORDER AND REASONS FOR DECISION. HOWEV ER, THE APPEAL IS NOT DECIDED ON MERITS AND NO REASONS FOR DECISION HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTICE OF THE DATE OF HEARING BECAUSE NO NOTICE WAS SERVED UP ON THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE SET ASIDE WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON ME RITS EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING OF APPEAL. WE, ACC ORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS BY G IVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECT ED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 18.09.2012 AND THE LD. CIT(A) MAY DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE WITHIN PERIOD OF 4 MONTHS FROM THE FIRST DATE OF APPEARANCE BEFORE HIM. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.07.2012. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY