Shri Rahul Kothari, Kanpur V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Kanpur

ITSSA 332/LKW/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9087 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDHIL KUMAR MADHUK
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

I.T.(SS)A. NOS.331 & 332/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2014-15 & 2015-16 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.(SS)A. NOS.331 & 332/LKW/2018 ASSTT YRS:2014-15 & 15-16 SHRI RAHUL KOTHARI, 201, CITY CENTRE, 63/2, THE MALL, KANPUR. PAN:AOEPK8235K VS. DY.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-IV, KANPUR DATED 19/ 03/2018 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE NOTED THAT LEARNED C IT(A) HAS PASSED EX- PARTE ORDERS IN BOTH THE APPEALS AS ACCORDING TO HI M, NOBODY HAS APPEARED ON THE DATES WHEN THE APPEALS WERE FIXED F OR HEARING BEFORE HIM. FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), IT IS APPARENT THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ISSUED VARIOUS NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, NEITHER AN YBODY APPEARED NOR FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND ULTIMATELY THE CIT(A) PASSED THE EX-PARTE ORDER. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE FEEL THAT ONE MORE OP PORTUNITY SHOULD BE APPELLANT BY SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, C.A. SHRI SUDHINDRA KUMAR JAIN, C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI SUDHIL KUMAR MADHUK, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING 17 / 09 /201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/09/2019 I.T.(SS)A. NOS.331 & 332/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2014-15 & 2015-16 2 GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE TH E CIT(A). THE PROVISION OF SECTION 250 WHICH DEALS WITH THE PROCEDURE IN AP PEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), ALLOWS A RIGHT TO AN ASSESSEE TO BE HEARD A T THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. EVEN THE NATURAL JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT NO APPEAL SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF WITHOUT BEING HEARD THE PARTY OR WITHOU T GIVING HIM THE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY. WE ARE OF THE V IEW FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN PROPE R AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS BY THE CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY TO BOTH THE PARTIES, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE CIT(A) SHALL REFIX THE SAID APPEALS AND DECIDE THE APPEALS AFRESH AFTER GIVING PROPER A ND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED BY LEARN ED CIT(A) AND NOT SEEK UNDUE ADJOURNMENT AND CO-OPERATE WITH LEARNED CIT(A) IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS. 3. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/09/2019) SD/. SD/. ( A. D. JAIN ) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:20/09/2019 *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