M/s Ashok Tea & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer-6(1), Kanpur

ITA 718/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 71823714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKN BENCH B : LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 718 /LKW/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006 - 2007 M/S ASHOK TEA & CO. PVT. LTD., VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 6(1), 51/92, NAYAGANJ, KANPUR. KANPUR. PAN:AAECA2377D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 28 / 11 /2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/12/2013 ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: TH IS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) INTER ALIA, ON VARIOUS GROUNDS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, STATING THAT THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED. 2. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT MAKING THE COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED. 2 3. BECAUSE THERE BEING NO SE RVICE OF NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT APPEARING BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF. 4. BECAUSE IN ANY CASE AND IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) SHOULD OUGHT TO HAVE PASSED AN ORDER IN ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL O N MERITS AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IN FACT THE CIT(A) HAS FIXED ON THRE E DATES OF HEARING AND THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT FOR FURNISHING THE RELEVANT INFORMATION. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS NOT ENTERTAINED BY THE CIT(A) AND HE DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THA T THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERIT THOUGH HE WAS REQUIRED TO DO SO AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, HIS ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 3. LEARNED D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE ON MERIT THOUGH H E WAS REQUIRED TO DO SO UNDER THE INCOME TAX AC T. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR READJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE 3 TO EXTENT ALL SORT OF COOPERATION TO CIT(A) AND APPEAR BEFORE HIM T O PURSUE THE APPEAL EFFECTIVELY AS AND WHEN DESIRED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/12/2013 ) SD/. SD/. (A. K. GARODIA) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18/12/2013 *CL SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR