M/S Alig Tannery, Kanpur vs Assessee

M/s Alig Tannery v. ACIT-3 11/27-B, Owaltoli Kanpur Kanpur TAN/PAN:AACFA4441 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by: Shri. Pradeep Seth, FCA Respondent by: Shri. Vivek Mishra, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 17 03 2015 Date of pronouncement: 26 03 2015

ORDER

PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), inter alia, on various grounds which are as under:-

1) That the learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the proceedings U/s 147 of the I.T. Act to assess the income after disallowance of the claim of deduction U/s 80IB in respect of Duty Draw Back amounting to Rs. 1,63,041/- were without jurisdiction.

2) That the learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has further erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the conditions pre-requisite under 1st Proviso to Section 147 for acquiring jurisdiction U/s 147 were not satisfied in the assessee's case and therefore the proceedings taken U/s 147 were barred by limitation.

:-2-:

3) That without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal the learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of assessee's claim for deduction U/s 80IB to the extent of Rs.1,63,041/- relating to export incentive on account of Duty Draw Back.

4) That the learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has further erred in law and on facts in applying the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India VS. C.I.T. 317 ITR 218 (S.C.) which is distinguishable on the facts of the assessee' s case.

5) That the order of the C.I.T.(Appeals) is arbitrary, unjust, excessive, bad in law and against the principles of natural justice.

2. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the order of the ld. CIT(A) with the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the appeal of the assessee without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. counsel for the assessee has further contended that in the interest of justice, the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and restored to his file for adjudication of the appeal on merit after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3. The ld. D.R. opposed the contentions of the ld. counsel for the assessee with the submission that the assessee did not appear despite affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4. Having carefully examined the order of the ld. CIT(A), we find that the ld. CIT(A) has mentioned in his order that the last notice issued by him has not been responded by the assessee, but it is not clear from his order whether notice of hearing was ever served upon the assessee. From a perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), we find that proper opportunity was not afforded to the assessee to prosecute its case. Therefore, we are of :-3-:

the view that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be afforded to the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merit after affording an opportunity of being head to the assessee, by passing a reasoned order.

5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the captioned page.

Sd/- Sd/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

DATED: 26th March, 2015 JJ:1703

Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR Assistant Registrar