Shri Atul Tripahi, Lucknow v. ITO, Lucknow

ITA 165/LKW/2010 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 16523714 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ADSPT3319G
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 165/LKW/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant Shri Atul Tripahi, Lucknow
Respondent ITO, Lucknow
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 01-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 01-07-2011
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 05-03-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A-BENCH LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 165(LUC.)/2010) A.Y. : 2006-07 SHRI ATUL TRIPATHI VS. THE ITO RANGE III 9/11 RANA PRATAP MAG LUCKNOW. LUCKNOW. PAN ADSPT3319G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.P.SINHA ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K.MITRA SR.D.R O R D E R PER H.L.KARWA VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-I LUCKNOW DATED 19.11.2009 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. VIDE GROUNDS NO.5 AND 6 OF THE APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSING EX PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. SHRI A.P.SINHA ADVOCATE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EX PARTE WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER BE 2 RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER SHRI ALOK MITRA LD.SR.D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS AFFORDED AMPLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING TO THE ASSESEE AND THEREFORE THE CONTENTION RAISED BY SHRI A.P. SINHA ADVOCATE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX PARTE. ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. IN OUR OPINION THE LD.CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. IN THE CASE OF RADHIKA CHARAN BANERJEE VS. SAMBALPUR MUNICIPALITY AIR (1979) ORISSA 69 THE HON'BLE ORISSA HIGH COURT HELD THAT A RIGHT OF APPEAL WHEREVER CONFERRED INCLUDES A RIGHT OF BEING AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LANGUAGE CONFERRING SUCH RIGHT. THAT IS A PART AND PARCEL OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WHERE AN AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO ACT IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITY IT IS IMPERATIVE TO GIVE THE APPELLANT AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. THUS CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WE THINK IT PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN TOTO AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WILL DECIDE THE 3 APPEAL PREFERABLY WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE NO FINDINGS ARE BEING GIVEN ON MERITS. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1.7.2011. SD. SD. (N.K.SAINI) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT JULY 1ST 2011. COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R. ITAT LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA.