ABHIMANYU SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), LUDHIANA
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 15.05.2024 passed for assessment year 2012-13. A.Y.2012-13 2
The ld. CIT DR has applied for an adjournment on the ground that he is holding additional charge as CIT(A) and he is pre-occupied in some other administrative work for the day after 12 o’clock. However, ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards paragraph No.7 of the impugned order and submitted that ld. CIT(A) has issued a notice on 10.05.2024 which was to be complied with upto 17.05.2024. The ld. CIT(A) did not wait for expiry of 17.05.2024 rather decided appeal itself on 15.05.2024. When we brought it to the notice of ld. CIT DR that this appeal is ultimately deserves to be restored back to the ld. CIT(A), then he was not able to controvert the facts. 3. Considering the above circumstances, we are of the view that assessee was not provided due opportunity of hearing because before the time period granted by the ld. CIT(A) in filing submission expires, he decided the appeal. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and restore all the issues agitated in this appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal of the assessee again on merit. A.Y.2012-13 3
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 10.01.2025. (KRINWANT SAHAY) VICE PRESIDENT
“Poonam”
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
अपीलाथ/ The Appellant 2. यथ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु/ CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड फाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार/