Muneesh Chawla, V. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

ITA 676/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4148 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NEIL JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.676/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ACIT, RANGE-4, KANPUR VS MUNEESH CHAWLA, A 303 IVY APARTMENT, SSUSHANT LOK-1, BLOCK A GURGAON PAN AAPPC 2996 Q (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI NEIL JAIN, DR RESPONDENT BY 01/06/2016 DATE OF HEARING 29 / 0 7 /201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER: MAHAVIR PRASAD, JM. 1. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, KANPUR. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT T HE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DELAYED BY 13 DAYS. A CONDONATION APPLICATION HAS B EEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE. NO SERIOUS OBJECTION WAS TAKEN BY THE LD. DR. WE ARE SATISFIED BY THE REASONS OF DELAY. THE DELAY IS CON DONED AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED DISPOSAL ON MERITS. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF THIS APPE AL EXPARTE WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(A) WITH A 2 DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER A FFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 5. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) IN THE AFORESAID CASE, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY RECORDED I N HIS SECOND PARA DIFFERENT DATES OF HEARING FIXED BY HIM BUT HE HAS NOT RECORDED CATEGORICALLY WITH RESPECT TO SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING. IN TH E LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECT ION TO READJUDICATE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (P.K. BANSAL) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29/07/2016 AKS 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 ASSTT. REG ISTRAR