Shyam Kumar Kanodia, Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

ITA 708/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0997 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• 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.708/LKW/2014 BLOCK PERIOD ENDING ON 25.7.2002 SHYAM KUMAR KANODIA 60/8, OLD DAL MANDI KANPUR V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE VI KANPUR TAN/PAN:AJYPK8818R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. ASHISH JAISWAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SMT. MANJU THAKUR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 17 07 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 07 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT DECIDING EACH AND EVERY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 233263.00 AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OUTSIDE BOOKS WITHOUT PROPERLY CONSIDERING ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS AND OTHER MATERIAL EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD. 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I, KANPUR :- 2 -: HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE SUBMISSIONS PLACED ON RECORDS THAT VALUATION OF SOME STOCK (AS PER ANNEXURE-1 TO PUNCHNAMA) OF MEDICINES WAS DONE BY SEARCH PARTY AT M R P BASIS WHICH ARE TO BE VALUED AT COST PRICE AND MADE ADDITIONS ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT RATE WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF TO SEARCH PARTY. 5. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS CONCLUDING STATEMENT THAT THERE WAS STOCK OF RS.876634.00 WHEREAS AS PER INVENTORY PREPARED AS PER ANNEXURE S-1 AND S-2 TO PUNCHNAMA, ITS VALUE COMES TO RS.11,09,903.00, REJECTING ALL THE CLAIMED, EXPLANATIONS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS INCLUDING STOCK REGISTER FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 6. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING THE ADDITION OF ENTIRE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED SALES. 7. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT ADEQUATE EVIDENCES WERE PLACED BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OF PASSING THE EX-PARTE ORDER WHEN ASSESSEE AND/OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS ATTENDED ALL THE PROCEEDINGS EXCEPT THE LAST DATE OF HEARING ON 30.07.2004, ON WHICH DATE ALL THE ADVOCATES WERE ON STRIKE. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. :- 3 -: CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO HIS FILE FOR RE-ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) THOUGH RECORDED FEW DATES OF HEARING, BUT HAS NOT RECORDED ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO THE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING UPON THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT APPEARS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL WITHOUT GETTING THE NOTICE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, WE SET ASIDE HIS ORDER AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 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: 23 RD JULY, 2015 JJ:1707 COPY FORWARDED TO: :- 4 -: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR