K.Leelavathi, Erode V. ITO, Erode

ITA 1065/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8507 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! ' . # , % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICI AL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.1065 & 1052/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 & 2011-12) MRS. K.LEELAVATHI B-93, SAMPATH NAGAR, ERODE. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(4), ERODE. PAN: ACKPL6392A ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEV ED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, COIMBATORE DATED 27.01.2016 IN ITA NOS.233/13-14 & 134/14-15(A)-1 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 250(6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HER APPEALS, HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE COMMON ISSUE IS A S FOLLOWS:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD AND THE APPEALS WERE NOT DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS 2 ITA NOS.1065 & 1052/MDS/2016 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, HE REQUESTED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESE NT HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENT LY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE BUT COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY CONFRONT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE L EARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED VIEW, THAT THE MATTER HAS TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN THE CASE OF BOTH THESE APPEALS FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AS IT APPEARS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS PASSED THE ORDERS WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. ACCORDINGLY, WE HEREBY REM IT BACK THE MATTERS TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 3 ITA NOS.1065 & 1052/MDS/2016 TAX (APPEALS) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AFTER OBTAINI NG REMAND REPORT FROM THE LD.A.O IN CASE IF IT IS FOUND NECES SARY. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 28 TH SEPTEMBER , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( ! ' . # ) ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF