Sri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Lucknow V. Income Tax Officer- 1(5), Lucknow

ITA 814/LKW/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7254 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ON TWO OCCASIONS APPEARED

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.814/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.814/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL, 154, ELDECO GREEN, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:ABJPA 0548 D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE-1(5), LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, LUCKNOW DATED 08/09/2017 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2013-14. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE NOTED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED EX-PARTE ORDER AS ACCORDING TO HIM, NOBODY HAS APPEARED ON THE DAT ES WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE HIM. FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), IT IS APPARENT THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ISSUED VARIOUS NOTICES TO THE A SSESSEE AND ON TWO OCCASIONS THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNM ENT. THEREAFTER, LEARNED CIT(A) ISSUED SEVERAL NOTICES BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM ASSESSEE. FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), IT IS N OT CLEAR WHETHER THE NOTICES ISSUED BY LEARNED CIT(A) WERE ACTUALLY SERV ED ON THE ASSESSEE OR APPELLANT BY SHRI K. R. RASTOGI, C. A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 20/09/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 / 09 /201 8 I.T.A. NO.814/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 2 NOT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE FEEL THAT ONE MO RE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 250 WHICH DEALS WI TH THE PROCEDURE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), ALLOWS A RIGHT TO AN ASSE SSEE TO BE HEARD AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. EVEN THE NATURAL JUSTIC E DEMANDS THAT NO APPEAL SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF WITHOUT BEING HEARD THE PARTY OR WITHOUT GIVING HIM THE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY. WE ARE OF T HE VIEW FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN PROPE R AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL BY THE C IT(A). WE, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY TO BOTH THE P ARTIES, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE CI T(A) WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE CIT(A) SHALL REFIX THE SAID APPEAL AND DEC IDE THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER GIVING PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AND NOT TO SEEK UNDUE ADJOURNMENT AN D CO-OPERATE WITH LEARNED CIT(A) IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/09 /2018) SD/. SD/. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:28/09/2018 *SINGH 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