Shri Chandra Shekhar Khosla, Lucknow V. Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax-2, Lucknow

ITA 735/LKW/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7868 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVASHISH MEHROTRA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 735/LKW/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015 - 16 CHANDRA SHEKHAR KHOSLA 25, SHAHNAJAF ROAD HAZRATGANJ, LUCKNOW V. DY. CIT - 2 LUCKNOW TAN/PAN: AFB PK1352D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI DEVASHISH MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SMT ALKA SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 28 01 20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28 01 20 20 O R D E R THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-1, LUCKNOW, DATED 24/10/2019, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16, TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY PASSING AN EX-PARTE ORDER. 2. THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY AS REQUIRED BY LAW HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT FAILING WHICH THE ORDER PASSED IS VOID AB INITIO, BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT ATTENDED THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHEREAS, ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING, THE LD. C1T(A) WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN OFFICE BECAUSE OF WHICH THE HEARING COULD NOT BE ATTENDED. 4. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN ANY WAY OF THE MATTER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACTS DULY GIVEN IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS ALONGWITH THE APPEAL AND IS NOT ITA NO.735/LKW/2019 PAGE 2 OF 3 JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE SAME WHILE PASSING AN EX-PARTE ORDER FOR ALLEGED NON PROSECUTION OF THE CASE. 5. THAT IN ANY WAY OF THE MATTER, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. 3. BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION, OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN SUPPORT OF GROUND NO.2, HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONGLY POSTED IN THE DIARY BY THE STAFF OF THE COUNSEL AS 24/10/2019 IN PLACE OF 23/10/2019; AND THAT THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING, I.E., ON 23/10/2019. 4. HEARD. I FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, HE HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL AFTER DISCUSSING IN DETAIL, HIS REASONS FOR AGREEING WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING REQUIRES TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE FULLY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). EVEN OTHERWISE, IT IS TRITE [S. VELU PALANDAR VS. DCIT 83 ITR 683 (MAD.) AND MS. SWATI PAWA VS. DY. CIT, 175 ITD 622 (DEL)] AND INCUMBENT ON THE LD CIT(A) TO DECIDE AN APPEAL ON MERIT EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION BEFORE THEM. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED AFRESH ON MERIT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ON AFFORDING DUE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, NO DOUBT, SHALL COOPERATE IN THE FRESH PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ALL PLEAS AVAILABLE UNDER THE ITA NO.735/LKW/2019 PAGE 3 OF 3 LAW SHALL REMAIN SO AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/01/2020. SD/ - [ A. D. JAIN ] VICE PRESIDENT DATED:28/01/2020 JJ:2801 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR