IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 77/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000 - 01 M/S ROMI MOTORS (P) LTD. 110/118, R. K. NAGA R KANPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - II KANPUR T AN /PAN : AAACR6855K (APP ELL A NT) (RESPONDENT) APP ELL ANT BY: SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C. K. SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 02 11 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16 11 201 8 O R D E R PER P ARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, J.M : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - II, KANPUR DATED 1/1 1/2017 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - (1) THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DECIDING THE APPEAL EX - PARTE AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 FOR F.Y. 1999 - 2000 RELEVANT TO A.Y 2000 - 01 IN RESPECT OF DEMAND OF RS. 35410/ - (2) THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL EX - PARTE SHOULD HAVE VE RIFIED THE DEPOSIT OF TDS FROM THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY BECAUSE THE PAYMENT OF REQUIRED TDS AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED ON 30.05.2010 & RELEVANT FORM NO. 26AS WAS FILED BEFORE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY OF TDS ON 16.06.2000. (3) THAT THE CONFIRMATION OF ORDER RELATING T O DEMAND OF RS. 3541 0 / - IS THEREFORE WRONG & INCORRECT AS THESE WAS NO DEFAULT OR ANY NON COMPLIANCE. ITA NO.77/LKW/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 (4) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS AGAINST LAW, FACTS & PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE H AS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE ISSUES ON MERIT WHEREAS AS PER LAW THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL ON MERIT EVE N IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT APPEAR. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO HIS FILE FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3 . THE LD. D.R. HAS ALSO AGREED TO THIS SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 4 . HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE ISSUES ON MERIT. WE ARE , THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT, HIS ORDER DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE AND WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) 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 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 / 11 / 201 8 . SD/ - SD / - [ T.S. KAPOOR ] [PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH NOVEMBER , 201 8 JJ: 0211 ITA NO.77/LKW/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPE D DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER