Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.32 & 33/LKW/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Mahoba Urban Cooperative Bank v. ACIT-5 Limited Kanpur Subhash Chawki Mahoba TAN/PAN:AAAJM1205F (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.788/LKW/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mahoba Urban Cooperative Bank v. ACIT-5 Limited Kanpur Subhash Chawki Mahoba TAN/PAN:AAAJM1205F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Prakhar Gupta, FCA Respondent by: Smt. Alka Singh, D.R. Date of hearing: 23 04 2019 Date of pronouncement: 23 04 2019
O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: These are assessee’s appeals against separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-II, Kanpur dated 12/10/2017 and 19/9/2017 for Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. 2. In all the years, the assessee has taken a common ground that ‘the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), Kanpur is bad in law and
ITA No.32 & 33/LKW/2018& ITA No.788/LKW/2017 Page 2 of 4
against the principle of natural justice as it has been passed without providing reasonable opportunity”. 3. By virtue of the impugned orders, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeals for non prosecution, observing that in reply to the notice issued, not even a single compliance has been made till date. The orders of the ld. CIT(A) reveal that in assessment year 2012-13, only one notice, dated 29/9/2017 has been issued by the office of the ld. CIT(A) for compliance on 11/10/2017; that for assessment year 2013-14, two notices, dated 8/3/2017 and 28/9/2017 for compliance on 21/3/2017 and 11/10/2017 respectively have been issued; and that for assessment year 2014-15, no date of issuance of notice has been mentioned in the order of the ld. CIT(A). 4. The ld. A.R. of the assessee has invited our attention to the affidavits of the CEO of the assessee, Shri Jyoti Kumar Purwar. The contents of the affidavits are identical, however, for the sake of reference, the contents of the affidavit for assessment year 2012-13 are reproduced, as below: “Affidavit of SHRI JYOTI KUAMR PURWAR, S/o Shri Radhe Shyam Purwar aged 44 years, residing at Dariganj, Mahoba, Uttar Pradesh-210427, on behalf of Mahoba Urban cooperative bank Limited. I, the above named deponent being fully acquainted with the facts, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- 1. That the deponent is the CEO of Kahoba Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. having principal place of business at behind Siibhash Chowki, Mahoba-210427 2. That the deponent being aggrieved with appellate order dated 12.10.2017 pas$ed by the Ld. CITJA)-II, Kanpur for the AY- 2012-13 vide order No. CIT(A)-II/10066/ACIT-S/17--18/159 by dismissing the appeal by passing an ex-parte order due to non
ITA No.32 & 33/LKW/2018& ITA No.788/LKW/2017 Page 3 of 4
appearance of appellant on the dates fixed for hearing before the Ld. CIT(A). That Shri Rajesh Kushwah, CA, resident of Ambedkar Market, Main Road, Orai, U.P-285001 was engaged in the instant matter to appear before the Ld. CIT(A)| and I was under the bona fide belief that proper compliances were made from the end of Shri Rajesh Kushwah, CA. 4. That after receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it came to my knowledge that no compliance was made by the said Shri Rajesh Kushwah, CA. 5. That on verification, it was found that Shri Rajesh Kushwah, CA did not appear on the dates fixed for hearing before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering this fact deponent appointed other new counsel CA Prakhar Gupta for the purpose of filing and appearing in appeal before the Income Tax Tribunal. 6.That the deponent give an undertaking that proper compliances shall be made in case the above mentioned case is remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A).”
Heard. We find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Moreover, he has not decided the appeals after discussing in detail, his reasons for agreeing with the assessment orders. The affidavit, as reproduced hereinabove, shows that the assessee was also not at fault for not appearing before the ld. CIT(A), as the counsel, who was engaged for arguing the cases of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), did not appear before him and the assessee has came to know about this fact only on receipt of the orders of the ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeals of the assessee for non-prosecution. As such, another opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the assessee to represent his cases 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)]
ITA No.32 & 33/LKW/2018& ITA No.788/LKW/2017 Page 4 of 4
and incumbent on the ld CIT(A) to decide an appeal on merit even in the absence of any representation before them. 6. 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. 7. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/04/2019.
Sd/- Sd/- [T. S. KAPOOR] [A. D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:23/04/2019 JJ:2304