M/S Pioneer Sales Corporation, Kanpur vs Assessee

M/s Pioneer Sales Corporation v. Income Tax Officer 1(3) 26/96B, Karachi Khana Kanpur Kanpur TAN/PAN:AAJFP9096L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by: Shri. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri. Punit Kumar, D.R. Date of hearing: 24 03 2015 Date of pronouncement: 31 03 2015

ORDER

PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) on a solitary ground that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty of Rs.4.66 lakhs levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called in short "the Act").

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 issued notice of hearing for three dates only. Assessee sought adjournment which was declined by the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex-parte against the assessee and confirmed the penalty. The ld. counsel for the assessee has further contended that in the interest of justice, the order of the ld. CIT(A) maybe set aside and the matter may be restored to him for re-adjudication of the appeal on merit after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

:-2-:

3. The ld. D.R. has simply placed reliance upon the order of the ld. CIT(A).

4. Having carefully examined the order of the ld. CIT(A) in the light of the rival submissions, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has fixed this appeal for hearing only on three dates, out of which notice was served upon the assessee for one or two dates. Later on, when the counsel for the assessee appeared, he sought adjournment which was declined by the ld. CIT(A). Having carefully perused the order of the ld. CIT(A), we find that the ld. CIT(A) has not afforded proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and he has disposed of the appeal ex-parte. In the light of these facts, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not afforded proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, we set aside his order and restore the matter to his file with a direction to re-adjudicate the appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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:31st March, 2015 JJ:2403 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR Assistant Registrar