Nasar Banu, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

CO 135/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5270 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. & SHRI SANJAY ARORA, A.M. I.TA. NO.1598/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD VIII (1) CHENNAI. VS. SMT. NASAR BANU, NO. 92/56, C.N.K. ROAD, CHENNAI 600 005. [PAN:ACPN9519J] C.O. NO. 135/MDS/2010 [IN I.TA. NO.1598/MDS/2010] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SMT. NASAR BANU, NO. 92/56, C.N.K. ROAD, CHENNAI 600 005. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD VIII (1) CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB ASSESSEE BY : NONE O R D E R PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AND CO OF THE ASSESS EE ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IX, CHENNAI DATED 14 .06.2010 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. IN THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT, THE MAIN CONTE NTION RELATES TO NON- COMPLIANCE OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WHILE ACCEPTING FRESH EVIDENCE AND CONSIDERING THE SAME BY THE FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY THOUGH WITHOUT CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT AND IT WAS PLEADE D BY THE LD. DR THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SH OULD BE SET ASIDE AND MATTER MAY ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. 1598/MDS/10 & 1598/MDS/10 & 1598/MDS/10 & 1598/MDS/10 & CO NO. 135/MDS/10 CO NO. 135/MDS/10 CO NO. 135/MDS/10 CO NO. 135/MDS/10 2 BE RESTORED ON HIS FILE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRO VISIONS OF RULE 46A AND DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SENT ONE APPLI CATION STATING THEREIN THAT HE IS GOING OUT OF STATION SO THE CASE SHOULD BE AD JOURNED AND REPOSTED FOR HEARING, WHICH REQUEST WAS CONSIDERED BY THE BENCH AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE NOT ADEQUATE TO ADJOURN THE HEARING AND THE SAME CAME T O BE REJECTED. SO, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE MATTERS AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DR AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND CONSIDERED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD AND FIND THAT CERTAIN FRESH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND C ONSIDERED FOR ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDIT ION BUT, WITHOUT EITHER ADHERING TO THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF INCOME TA X RULES, 1962 OR TAKING REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE MAN DATORY PROVISION OF LAW HAVE BEEN VIOLATED IN THIS CASE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND IT JU ST AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK ON HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH BY FOLLOWING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A AND AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AS WEL L AS ASSESSING OFFICER. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 5. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT SHALL BE TREATED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6. AS REGARDS, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE , IT IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH IS BEING SET ASIDE B Y US, THEREFORE, THE CROSS ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. 1598/MDS/10 & 1598/MDS/10 & 1598/MDS/10 & 1598/MDS/10 & CO NO. 135/MDS/10 CO NO. 135/MDS/10 CO NO. 135/MDS/10 CO NO. 135/MDS/10 3 OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND A CCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED SOON AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEAR ING ON 30.11.2010. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 30.11.2010. VM/- COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)- /CIT, /DR