K.M.Musthafa , Erode V. ACIT Central Circle 2 , Coimbatore

CO 169/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3751 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAILENDRA MAMIDI
• Assessee Lawyers: B GIRIDHARAN
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.2074 TO 2078/CHNY/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11, 2012-13 TO 2015-16) THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE. VS SHRI K.M. MUSTHAFA, NO.676/1, EMM MAIN STREET, ERODE 638 001. PAN: ALNPM5073H ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) & C.O. NOS.167 TO 171/CHNY/2017 (IN ITA NOS. 2074 TO 2078/CHNY/2017) SHRI K.M. MUSTHAFA, NO.676/1, EMM MAIN STREET, ERODE 638 001. VS THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE. PAN: ALNPM5073H ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / REVENUE BY : SHRI SAILENDRA MAMIDI, CIT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B. GIRIDHARAN, CA '# /DATE OF HEARING : 24.05.2018 '# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.05.2018 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18, CHENNAI, DATED 31.05.2017 IN ITA NOS. 373, 375 TO 378/16-17 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11, 2012-13 TO 2015-16 PASSED U/S.250(6) R.W.S. 143(3) & 153A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE 2 ITA NOS.2074 TO 2078/CHNY/2017 & CO NOS.167 TO 171/CHNY/2017 HAS ALSO RAISED CROSS OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11, 2012-13 TO 2015-1 6. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 9 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL S BY THE REVENUE. THE LD.ACIT HAS FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT BE FORE US STATING THAT THE DELAY HAD OCCURRED DUE TO THE TIME LAG DUR ING THE TRANSIT OF FILES FROM HIGHER AUTHORITIES. IT WAS THEREFORE PLE ADED THAT THE SHORT DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BY 9 DAYS MAY BE CONDON ED. THE LD.AR OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.DR. HOWEVER, AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, THOUGH WE DO NOT APPRECIATE THE LETHARG IC ATTITUDE OF THE REVENUE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE ARE OF THE C ONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SHORT DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS REQUIRES TO B E CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 9 DAYS I N FILING THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND PROCEED TO HEAR THE CASE ON MERITS. 3. BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE HAVE RAISED V ARIOUS GROUNDS IN THEIR APPEALS. HOWEVER THE MAIN PRAYER OF THE REVENUE WAS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD ALLOWED CERTAIN GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE FRESH EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFOR E HIM, THEREBY NOT PROVIDING THE LD.AO AN OPPORTUNITY TO E XAMINE THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) FOR THE FIR ST TIME. THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED STATING THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS VIOLATED 3 ITA NOS.2074 TO 2078/CHNY/2017 & CO NOS.167 TO 171/CHNY/2017 RULE 46A OF THE RULES BY NOT OBTAINING THE REMAND R EPORT FROM THE LD.AO BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUES. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.AO FO R FRESH EXAMINING OF THE EVIDENCES AND THEREAFTER PASS APPROPRIATE OR DER IN ACCORDANCE WITH MERIT AND LAW. THE LD.AR COULD NOT CONTROVERT TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.DR. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGU MENTS OF THE LD.DR. THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE OBTAINED A REMAN D REPORT FROM THE LD.AO WITH RESPECT TO THE FRESH EVIDENCE P RODUCED BEFORE HIM FOR THE FIRST TIME AND THEREAFTER DECIDED THE M ATTER, WHICH HE HAS GROSSLY FAILED. THEREFORE AS ARGUED BY THE LD.DR, T HE LD.CIT(A) HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES. T HEREFORE WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER OPTION BUT TO REMIT THE MATTER B ACK TO THE FILE OF LD.AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. SINCE WE ARE REMITTI NG THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.AO, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE T O REMIT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. BOTH THE PARTIES ALSO AGREED FOR THE MATTER TO BE HEARD ONCE AGAIN BY THE LD.AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATI ON. ACCORDINGLY ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.AO FOR DE-NOVA 4 ITA NOS.2074 TO 2078/CHNY/2017 & CO NOS.167 TO 171/CHNY/2017 CONSIDERATION. WE ALSO CAUTION THE ASSESSEE AND HIS COUNSEL TO CO- OPERATE BEFORE THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE THEIR ORDERS, FAILING WHICH THE L D.REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH MERIT AND LAW. FURTHER, NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL ADMIT ANY FRESH EVIDEN CE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THEM WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUES. 5. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 29 TH MAY, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &' /CHENNAI, () /DATED 29 TH MAY, 2018 RSR ) +, -, /COPY TO: 1. / ASSESSEE 2. /REVENUE 3. 1 ( )/CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. /GF