SMT. ARCHANA SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 4(1), LUCKNOW

PDF · subscribers
ITA 426/LKW/2019Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 February 2020AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee and did not decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee disputed the service of hearing notices and claimed inadequate opportunity. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not clearly indicate notice service and that the appeal was not decided on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without proper notice and opportunity. Whether the CIT(A) is obligated to decide an appeal on merit even without assessee representation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI. A. D. JAIN

For Appellant: Ms Shweta Mittal, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt Archana Shukla v. ITO 4(1) 5.358, Gomti Nagar Extension Lucknow Gomti Nagar, Lucknow TAN/PAN:DBBPS3822R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms Shweta Mittal, FCA Respondent by: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date of hearing: 05 02 2020 Date of pronouncement: 05 02 2020 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Lucknow, dated 4/6/2019 for assessment year 2014- 15, taking the following grounds:

1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order which is illegal, improper and against the principles of natural justice.

2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and confirming the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming adhoc disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs.6,33,970/-.

4.

The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.2,29,000/-.

2.

By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution, observing that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of the present appeal. The ld. CIT(A) had issued two notices, dated 15/4/2019 and 15/5/2019, fixing the dates of hearing on 25/4/2019 and 20/5/2019 respectively and passed the order on 4/6/2019, dismissing the appeal qua the assessee. But, it is not clear from his order whether notice of hearing was ever served upon the assessee. Such service of notices has, however, been disputed by the assessee.

3.

Heard. I find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Moreover, he has not decided the appeal after discussing in detail, his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. In this view of the matter, another opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the assessee to represent his case fully before the ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.) and ‘Ms. Swati Pawa vs. Dy. CIT’, 175 ITD 622 (Del)] and incumbent on the ld CIT(A) to decide an appeal on merit even in the absence of any representation before them. 4. In view of the above, the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05/02/2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →