Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI A.D JAIN
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A.D JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT
ITA No.264 & 265/Lkw//2018 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2014-15 Vs. Allahabad Bank Karmchari Coop. Credit ACIT-1, Society Ltd., Bada Chauraha, Kanpur Kanpur PAN AADAT5211C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Swaran Singh, CA Respondent by Shri C.K. Singh, DR Date of hearing 17/01/2019 Date of pronouncement 18/01/2019
O R D E R These appeals are filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2009- 10 and 2014-15, involving common issues. As such, they are being
disposed of by this composite order. Details, for convenience, are being taken from ITA No.264/Lkw/2018 in the case of Allahabad Bank Karmchari Coop Credit Society Ltd. The following grounds have been raised in ITA
No.264/Lkw/2018:
“1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in passing an Ex-Parte Order, dated 23.03.2018, in appeal filed against the Assessment Order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income
2 ITA No. 264&265/Lkw/2018
Tax Act,-1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 21.01.2017 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned appellate order without calling and examining the assessment records as provided in the Manual Of Procedures of CBDT. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I Kanpur has erred in law and on facts without considering the fact the impugned assessment order is without-jurisdiction, void-ab- initio and liable to be quashed 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the disallowance of deduction of Rs.33,26,340/- claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, without considering the fact that the Ld. A.O. passed the impugned assessment order without assumption of proper jurisdiction therefore, the impugned assessment order is illegal, void-ab- initio and liable to be quashed. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the disallowance of deduction of Rs.33,26,340/- claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. made by the Ld. AO 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in sustaining an arbitrary addition of Rs.33,26,340/- made by the Ld. AO, by disallowing the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-I, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts by sustaining the arbitrary disallowance of deduction claimed by the appellant u/s 80P of the I.T. Act, 1961, which is wholly unjustified, without proper basis, too high & deserves to be deleted, 8. That the order of the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-I, Kanpur is insupportable in law and on facts and is also contrary to the principles of natural justice and equity.”
3 ITA No. 264&265/Lkw/2018
By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non prosecution, observing that notices dated 13.04.2017, 20.07.2017 and 03.11.2017 were served on the address submitted by the assessee in its memo of appeal; that however, no written submission or paper book had been filed in support of any of the grounds of appeal taken; and that none had attended on behalf of 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. As such, 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 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.
4 ITA No. 264&265/Lkw/2018
Facts being similar in the other appeal, i.e., ITA No.265/Lkw/2018, this
appeal is also restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A), with the same observations
as given in ITA No.264/Lkw/2018.
In the result, for statistical purposes, both the appeals are treated as
allowed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 18/01/2019)
Sd/- (A.D. Jain) Vice President Dated : 18/01/2019 Aks – Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
5 ITA No. 264&265/Lkw/2018
DATE OF DICTATION 17.01.2019 2. DATE ON WHICH TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 17.01.2019 2.A DATE ON WHICH TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER………………… DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE PS/SR.P.S………………… 3. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT…………………… DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO PS/SR.P.S…………… 5. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE……………………………….. 6. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO………………… 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK……………………. 8. DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT………….... 9. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE O.S. ……………………… 10. 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER……………………………… 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DESPATCH SECTION FOR DESPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER……………………………… DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER…………………… 13.