Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow
M/S.Pahladrai Confectioneries ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, ... on 5 November, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH "SMC", LUCKNOW
BEFORE SHRI A.D JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT
ITA No.312/LKW/2018
Assessment Year 2014-15
M/s Pahladrai Confectioneries, Vs DCIT-4,
E-26, Site-III, Panki Indus. Area, Kanpur
Kanpur 208022
PAN AABCP 1403 A
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Respondent by Shri C.K. Singh, DR
Date of hearing 02/11/2018
Date of pronouncement 05/11/2018
ORDER
This is assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, taking the following grounds:
"01. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in summarily dismissing the appeal ex-parte without giving any opportunity of being heard.
02. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and should have passed a speaking order based on Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal as mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal.
03. Because on a proper consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal in default is bad in law, unjustified and be quashed.
04. Because without prejudice the CIT(A) has not decided the following grounds of appeal:
(1) Because the AO has erred on facts and in law in disallowing Rs. 2,13,837/- out of various repairs expenses.2 ITA No. 312/Lkw/2018
(2) Because the AO has erred in law as well as on facts in disallowing Rs.93,156/- out of miscellaneous expenses.
(3) Because the AO has erred in law as well as on facts in disallowing Rs. 12,034/~ out of trading expenses."
2. By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee's appeal for non prosecution, observing that notices dated 22.09.2017, 08.11.2017, 24.11.2017 & 09.01.2018 was served on the e- mail address submitted by the assessee while e-filing the appeal, i.e., [email protected]; 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 notice 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 3 ITA No. 312/Lkw/2018 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 05/11/2018) Sd/-
(A.D. Jain) Vice President Dated: 05/11/2018 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
4
ITA No. 312/Lkw/2018
Date
1. Draft dictated / (DNS) 02.11.2018 PS
2. Draft placed before author 05.11.2018 PS
3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM/AM
4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM/AM
5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS PS/PS
6. Kept for pronouncement on PS
7. File sent to the Bench Clerk PS
8. Date on which file goes to the AR
9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
10. Date of dispatch of Order.