|
Court : INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Brief : : At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of assessee has submitted a copy of the adjournment petition made before ld.CIT(A) dated 09.02.2011 and submitted that the ld. CIT(A)’s observations that no applications for adjournment were ever received is not correct. Therefore, he requested to restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) and direct him to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard in order to controvert the findings of the AO.
Citation : Shantilal Baid Kolkata (PAN: AEGPB 4098 F) (APPELLANT) -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-36(2) Kolkata (RESPONDENT)
Judgment :
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “B”, KOLKATA
[Before Hon’ble Sri C.D.Rao, AM & Hon’ble Sri George Mathan, JM]
ITA No.311/Kol/2012
Assessment Year: 2006-07
Shantilal Baid
Kolkata
(PAN: AEGPB 4098 F)
(APPELLANT)
-Versus-
I.T.O., Ward-36(2)
Kolkata
(RESPONDENT)
For the Appellant: Shri Vikash Surana
For the Respondent: Shri Apurba Kr.Das
Date of Hearing: 25.06.2012.
Date of Pronouncement: 25.06.2012.
ORDER
Per Shri C.D.Rao, AM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against order dated 18.10.2011 of CIT(A) –XX, Kolkata pertaining to A.Yr. 2006-07.
2. At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of assessee has submitted a copy of the adjournment petition made before ld.CIT(A) dated 09.02.2011 and submitted that the ld. CIT(A)’s observations that no applications for adjournment were ever received is not correct. Therefore, he requested to restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) and direct him to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard in order to controvert the findings of the AO.
3. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue could not object to the said request of the ld. Counsel for assessee.
4. After hearing the rival submissions and after careful perusal of the impugned order, it is observed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of assessee by observing that the assessee has brought no material on record to controvert the findings of AO. Since in this case the ld. CIT(A) has either heard the case or his Authorised Representative it is not fair on the part of ld. CIT(A) to make the above observations that the assessee has brought no material to controvert the findings of AO and therefore in our opinion the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with section 250(6) of the IT Act. In the interest of justice we set aside the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) to re-decide the appeal afresh as per law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee.
5. In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
[George Mathan] [C. D. Rao]
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Date: 25.06.2012.
R.G.(.P.S.)
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Shantilal Baid, P-12, New Howrah Bridge, Approach Road, Kolkata-700001.
2 The I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata
3. The CIT-
4. The CIT(A)-XX, Kolkata
5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata
True Copy,
By order,
Deputy /Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata Benches
|
