Shashank Shukla, Raibareli V. Income Tax Officer, Raibareli

ITA 770/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4813 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.770/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 CIT(APPEALS) - III, LUCKNOW VS SHASHANK SHUKLA B-199, DOORBHASH NAGAR, RAEBARELI. PAN AZKPS 5193 B (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SMT. AMIT NIGAM, DR RESPONDENT BY 19/11/2015 DATE OF HEARING 13 /01/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT (A)-III, LUCKNOW DATED 05.02.2014 FOR THE AY 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A)-LLL ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT CONSIDERING THE EXEMPT WORKING DAYS AS THE APPLICAN T HAS WORKED 189 DAYS IN A FOREIGN SHIP AND EARNED MONEY IN FOREIGN CURRENCY. 2. THAT NO ANY OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE CU RRENT CIT(A). 3. THAT THE ESTIMATE OF INCOME MADE BY THE LD. A.O. IS VERY HIGH AND ARBITRARY. 4. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) -III IS AGAINST MERIT, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL ASPECT OF THE CASE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE WITH OUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF 2 BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) THAT ANY NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER GRANTING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE A SSESSEE. 3. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AU THORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY NOTED THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND HAS GIVEN HIS FINDING AND THERE IS NO MEN TION IN HIS ORDER THAT ANY NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE. 5. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE FEEL IT PROPER THAT THE MA TTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER ALLOWING ADEQUA TE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. C IT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER ALLOWING REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. SINCE WE HAVE RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO TH E FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION, WE DO NOT MAKE ANY COMMENT ON THE MERIT O F ISSUE IN DISPUTE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAT E MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: 13 /01/2016 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT . REGISTRAR