Shri Vimal Kumar Gupta, vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.61/LKW/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The first appellate authority, having fixed the hearing of an appeal for a single date and having disposed of the appeal without verifying that notice of that hearing had been served on the assessee, does not afford the assessee the proper opportunity of being heard required by law; an order passed in that condition is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded to the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication after due opportunity of hearing is given.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order of CIT (A), inter ailaon following grounds :-
1. That the lower court has not considered the fact that the notice issued u/s 250 dated 03.10.2013 fixing the appeal for 15.10.2013 was not received by the Appellant.
2. That the act of the Assessing Officer is arbitrary in addition of income by applying the not profit 8% as against shown by
--2--
appellant at 4%. The income shown by appellant is quite reasonable and may kindly be accepted.
3. That the disallowance of Rs.66,604/- under t5he head house property should be accepted by the accessing officer. The housing loan was availed for using such house for residential purpose.
4. That the lower court should have given another opportunity to the appellant for hearing the appeal.
2. During the course of hearing of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has invited our attention that, the CIT (A) has decided the appeal against the assessee without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the Assesee. In support of his contention, he has invited our attention to the order of the CIT(A) that he has fixed the hearing of the appeal on one date only. Without veryfying the factum of service, he disposed of the appeal against the assessee. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) may be set side and appeal may be restored to him for its readjudication.
3. The Ld.D.R. did not dispute the fact.
4. Having carefully perused the order of the CIT(A), we find that he has fixed one date only and without ensuring the service of notice, he disposed of the appeal. Therefore, we are of the view that the proper opportunity of being heard was not afforded to the Assessee. We accordingly, set side the matter to his file with the direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
--3--
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
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: 23rd January, 2015
Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free