Hirdayesh Sharma, Lucknow V. ACIT, Lucknow

ITA 762/LKW/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5329 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 31-12-2010
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K B AJAJ
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Right to appeal

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT I.T.A.NOS.762 & 763(LKW.)/2010 A.YS. : 1999-2000 & 2000-01 SHRI HIRDAYESH SHARMA., VS. THE ACIT, RANGE-II, 4A,PARK ROAD, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW. PAN AJLPS6140B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K.BAJAJ, D.R. O R D E R THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRE CTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) I, LUCKNOW DATE D 15.10.2010 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 AND 2000-01. SINCE THE APPEALS CONCERN THE SAME ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THEY WERE HEARD TO GETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE. 2. VIDE COMMON GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEALS, THE ASSE SSEE HAS STATED AS UNDER : 1. BECAUSE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX PARTE AND IN NOT PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AS PROVIDED IN LAW. 3. AFTER HEARING SHRI P.K.BAJAJ, LD.D.R., I FIND T HAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS PASSED EX PARTE ORDERS WITHOUT AFFORDING ADEQUAT E OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEALS. THE IMPUGNED ORDERS 2 PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ARE ALSO NON-SPEAKING.. IN MY OPINION, THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEALS. IN THE CASE OF RADHIKA CHARAN BANERJEE VS. SAMBALPUR MUNICIPALITY, AIR (1979) ORISSA 69, THE H ON'BLE ORISSA HIGH COURT HELD THAT A RIGHT OF APPEAL WHEREVER CONFERR ED INCLUDES A RIGHT OF BEING AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, IRRE SPECTIVE OF THE LANGUAGE CONFERRING SUCH RIGHT. THAT IS A PART AND PARCEL OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WHERE AN AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO ACT IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITY, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO GIVE THE APPELLANT AN ADEQUATE OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. THUS, CONSIDERING THE E NTIRE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, I THINK IT PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN TOTO AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEALS AFRESH ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE A ND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT (A) IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE APPEALS WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF REC EIPT OF THIS ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, NO FINDINGS ARE BEING GIVEN ON MERITS. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 .12.2010. (H.L.KARWA) VICE PRESIDENT DECEMBER 31ST ,2010. COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R.,ITAT, LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA. 3