THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.

(A) These appeals vide I.T.A. Nos.247 to 249/Lkw/2019 have been filed by the assessee against the respective impugned appellate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [`CIT(A)” for short] each dated 22/01/2019. These appeals were heard together and for the sake convenience, a consolidated order is being passed.

(B) At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned appellate orders passed by the learned CIT(A) are cryptic and non speaking orders. He further submitted that the submissions made by the assessee during appellate proceedings in the office of the learned CIT(A) were not fully taken into consideration and the assessee did not get proper opportunity to present the case before the learned CIT(A). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, further more, that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 206C(1C)/206C(6A) of the Act were passed ex-parte qua the assessee without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issues in dispute in the present appeal before the Tribunal, should be restored back to the file of the officer holding juri iction to pass orders u/s 206C of the Act with the direction to pass de novo orders in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned D.R. for Revenue expressed no objection to this. Accordingly, in the specific facts and circumstances of the present appeals before us, the impugned appellate orders of the learned CIT(A) are set aside and the officer holding juri iction u/s 206C of the Act is directed to pass de novo orders in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

(C) In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 18/07/2025) .
Dated:18/07/2025
*Singh

Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. Concerned CIT
4. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow .