D.Sathyamoorthy, Erode V. ITO, Erode

ITA 1088/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96069 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , ! , ' #$ % [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.1088/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI D. SATHYAMOORTHY 23, PAARI NAGAR PALAYAPALAYAM PIRIVU PERUNDURAI ROAD COLLECTORATE POST ERODE 638 011 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD II(4) ERODE [PAN ALAPS 3245 G] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 27 - 08 - 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 - 09 - 2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-3, COIMBA TORE, DATED 21.1.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 . 2. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT DURING THE PENDENCY OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), HE CALLED FOR A ITA NO.1088/15 :- 2 -: REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT WAS FURNISHED TO THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE FOR THE ASSESSEE ON 21.1.2015 AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE REMAND REPOR T, THE CIT(A) DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL. REFERRING TO PAGE 11 PARA 6 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HA S OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEES AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS ACCEPTED T HE REMAND REPORT AND THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE IN EXPENSES TO THE EX TENT OF ` 11,96,548/- IS CONFIRMED. REFERRING TO THE AFFIDAV IT FILED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WHO AP PEARED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) H ANDED OVER THE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT TO THE AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE ON 21.1.2015 AND THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SIGNED THE ORDER SHEET ONLY TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT AND NOT TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTS OF THE REMAND REPORT . THEREFORE, OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE AUTHO RIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE R EMAND REPORT AND THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE IN EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 11,96,548/- IS CONFIRMED IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) BY A LETTE R DATED 3.7.2015 CLARIFIED THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ON 21.1.2015 HAS ITA NO.1088/15 :- 3 -: SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM THAT HE HAS NOTHING MORE TO SA Y AGAINST A DETAILED AND FACTUAL REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, HE DICTATED THE ORDER ON THE SAME DAY. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HA S NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTS OF THE REMAND REPORT AMOUNTS TO MISLEADING THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 11,96,548 BEING THE DIFFERENCE IN EXPENSES POINTED OUT IN THE REMAND REPORT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THO UGH THE REMAND REPORT WAS RECEIVED BY THE CIT(A) ON 16.1.2015, THE COPY OF THE SAME WAS FURNISHED TO THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ON 21.1.2015 ONLY. THE CIT(A), ADMITTEDLY, HAS NOT GI VEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE HIS OBJECTIONS. IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE STATE D BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT HE HAS NOTHING MORE TO SAY AGAINST THE REMAND REPORT WHEN HE HAS NO TIME TO GO THROUGH THE COPY OF THE REMAND RE PORT FURNISHED BY THE CIT(A). THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OP INION THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO THE ASSESSE E TO FILE HIS OBJECTIONS AFTER FURNISHING THE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT. THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE CIT(A) BEING A JUDICIAL PROCE EDING, THE CIT(A) IS EXPECTED TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF ITA NO.1088/15 :- 4 -: THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT JUSTICE NOT ONLY BE DO NE BUT APPEARS TO BE DONE BY GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSES SEE. SINCE NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE OBJE CTIONS TO THE REMAND REPORT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REMAND RE PORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) SHALL GIVE SUFF ICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE REMAND REPO RT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE A FRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ! ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED: 4 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 RD %&'' ()'*) / COPY TO: ' 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ' +',! / CIT(A) 5. )-.' / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. ' + / CIT 6. .0'1 / GF