1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.879/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010 - 2011 INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE - 1(2), LUCKNOW. VS M/S METRO HOSPITAL & TRAUMA CENTRE, 1/25, VIJAY KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW.. (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI B. P. YADAV, COST ACCOUNTANT APPELLANT BY SHRI Y. P. SRIVASTAVA, D. R. RESPONDENT BY 25/06/2015 DATE OF HEARING 24 /07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - I, LUCKNOW DATED 17/09/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - I, LUCKNOW (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.77,01,676/ - MADE BY THE LD. A.O. BY PASSING EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 2. ON THE FACTS STATED IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN PASSING THE EX - PARTE 2 ORDER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.77,01,676/ - MADE BY THE LD. A.O. IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 3. BECAUSE THE MER IT OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE EX - PARTE ORDER SO PASSED BY HIM BE SENT BACK TO HIS FILE FOR PASSING THE APPELLATE ORDER ON MERIT AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS IN FACT EX - PARTE BECAUSE DUE TO SOME PERSONAL PROBLEMS BEING FACED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, HE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE HIM IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED BY HIM . THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT HE GIVES AN UNDERTAKING THAT IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO CIT(A), HE WILL MAKE DUE COMPLIANCE BEFORE HIM. 4. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT ENOUGH OPPORTUNITY HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED BY CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, THE MATTER SHOULD NOT BE RESTORED. 5. WE HA VE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT ADMITTEDLY, SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) TO SHRI B. P. YADAV, COST ACCOUNTANT, WHO APPEARED BEFORE HIM AND ASKED FOR SEVERAL ADJOURNMENTS BUT STILL THE FACT REMAINS THAT THERE WAS NO EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION BEFORE CIT(A). REGARDING NON APPEARANCE BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT IT WAS THE A.R. WHO WAS SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS BEFORE CIT(A) BECAUSE OF CERTAIN PERSONAL PROBLEMS. WE, THEREFORE, FEEL THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE , THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE 3 OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT TH IS TIME , A.R. SHOULD NOT SEEK ADJOURNMENT BEFORE CIT(A) EXCEPT COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 24 /07/2015 *C.L.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 ASSTT. REGISTRAR