K.Ranjith Kumar, Salem V. ITO Ward 2(2), Salem

ITA 1179/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7581 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G N RAGAVENDRA RAO IRS JCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: T S LAKSHMIVENKATARAMAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH : CHENNAI , . , [BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ] !' ./I.T.A. NO.1179/CHNY/2019. #$% &$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011. SHRI. K. RANJITHKUMAR, 101, PAKKALIYUR POST, SANKARI, SALEM 636 301. [PAN AZUPR 2153A] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2) SALEM. !' ./I.T.A. NO.1180/CHNY/2019. #$% &$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16. S.N. ASAITHUMBIE NO.122/380-X, SALEM MAIN ROAD, B. KOMARAPALAYAM, NAMAKKAL 638 183. [PAN ADHPA 9434A] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, NAMAKKAL. !' ./I.T.A. NO.1181/CHNY/2019. #$% &$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05. K. JAYANTHI, NO.42, NARASIMHA CHETTY ROAD, SHEVAPET, SALEM 636 002. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, SALEM. [PAN ACAPJ 0475G] ITA NO.1179-1188- /2019 :- 2 -: !' ./I.T.A. NO.1182/CHNY/2019. #$% &$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011. SHRI. P. MANI, BEEMAMPALAYAM, PAPPANAICKENPATTI- POST, ATTUR, SALEM 636 114. [PAN BADPM 8530R] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3) SALEM. !' ./I.T.A. NO.1183/CHNY/2019. #$% &$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011. M. VASANTHA, NO.82, GOVINDAMMAL NAGAR, SEELANAICKENPATTI, SALEM 636 201. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1) SALEM. [PAN AEDPV 8915Q] !' ./I.T.A. NO.1184/CHNY/2019. #$% &$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011 R. VELMURUGAN, 16E, KATTU KOTTAIGAL, SADHASIVAPURAM, ATTUR, SALEM. [PAN AJRPV 3650M] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3) SALEM. !' ./I.T.A. NO.1185/CHNY/2019. #$% &$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011. M. PERIYASAMY, NO.1317, PERINJOOR NATTAR VALAVU, CHINNA KALRAYAN MALAI (VADAKKU) SALEM 636 138. [PAN AVHPP 3956A] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3) SALEM. ITA NO.1179-1188- /2019 :- 3 -: !' ./I.T.A. NOS.1186 & 1187/CHNY/2019. #$% &$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 & 2011-12 M. PALANISAMY, 2/34, PETHANOOR, THALAVAIPATTY VILLAGE, SALEM 636 302. [PAN BOIPP 7170R] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1) SALEM !' ./I.T.A. NO.1188/CHNY/2019. #$% &$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 P. NALLAPPAN (HUF) NO.3/17, NERINJIPATTY, VELLAKKALPATTI, OMALUR, SALEM 636 011 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4) SALEM [PAN AANHP 8838C] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) !' '( ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN, C.A. +,'( ) * /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. G.N. RAGAVENDRA RAO, IRS, JCIT. # - ) . /DATE OF HEARING : 23-07-2019 /0&% ) . /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-07-2019 / O R D E R PER BENCH THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES DI RECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SALEM (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS CIT(A)) DATED 06.02.2019. ITA NO.1179-1188- /2019 :- 4 -: 2. SINCE, THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE THE SAME VIDE THIS C OMMON ORDER. 3. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY, THE FACTS RELEVANT TO THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1180/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016 IN RESPECT OF SHRI. S.N. ASAITHUMBIE ARE STATED H EREIN. 4. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1) THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISS ING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATEMENT OF F ACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE NOT FILED ALONG WITH FORM NO .35. IN THE FORM NO.35 FILED THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN 6 AS CLEARL Y INDICATED THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION DISPUTED IS RS.1,94,10,576/-. TH E LEARNED CIT (A) TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE HUGE DEMAND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON TECHNICALITIES. THE POWERS OF CIT(A) IS CO- TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE AO AND WITH A VIEW TO REN DER SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE COULD HAVE CALLED FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE AO AND COULD HAVE PASSED AN ORDER ON MERITS SINCE THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN STATED IN FORM NO. 35 FILED. 2) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUND AND OTHER SUBMISSION S TO BE MADE AT THE TIME OF APPEAL HEARING THE APPELLANT PRAYS N ECESSARY DIRECTIONS MAY KINDLY BE GIVEN TO CIT(A) TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER UNDERTAKES, TO FILE TH E STATEMENT OF FACT AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY . 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSI NESS OF TRADING IN TEXTILES. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2015-1 6 WAS FILED ON 30.10.2015 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,99,550/- AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -5, NAMAKKAL (HEREINAFTER CALLED AO ') VIDE ORDER DATED ITA NO.1179-1188- /2019 :- 5 -: 31.03.2015 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,97,10,12 6/-. WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL OF K1,94,10,576/- HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO OFFER EXPLANATION IN SUPPORT OF THE SOURCE FOR INTRODUCTI ON OF CAPITAL AMOUNT. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ADDITION, AN APPEAL WA S PREFERRED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDE R DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE BY HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO RECTIFY THE DEFECTS MENTIONED IN THE APPEAL DESPITE AN OPPORTUN ITY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE CIT( A), THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT AP PEAL. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT NO REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY THE DEFECTS IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE THE LD. AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE HAD NO SERIOUS OBJECTION TO REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION. ITA NO.1179-1188- /2019 :- 6 -: 9. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A), IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 25.01.2019 CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY THE DEFECTS IN APPEAL ON OR BEFORE 05.02 .2019. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHEN THE LETTER WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSE SSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE PERIOD OF TEN DAYS MAY NOT BE REASONABLE TIME TO RECTIFY THE DEFECTS. THUS IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE IMPUG NED ORDER WAS PASSED IN DUE HASTE WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY THE DEFECTS. IN THESE CIRCUMST ANCES, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DENOV O ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION. THUS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS.1179, 1181 TO 1188/CHNY/2019 10 . SINCE, THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE ID ENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.1180/CHNY/2019, FOR THE REASONS MEN TIONED THEREIN, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION ON THE LINES INDICATED IN APPEAL ITA NO.1180/CHNY/2019 SUPRA. HENCE, THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO.1179-1188- /2019 :- 7 -: 11 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSES SEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ' #$ /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1 #- / CHENNAI 2# / DATED:24TH JULY, 2019. KV 3 ) +.4 5' !6 5&. / COPY TO: 1 . !' '( / APPELLANT 3. 7. (!' ) / CIT(A) 5. 5 :; +.#< / DR 2. +,'( / RESPONDENT 4. 7. / CIT 6. ;$ =- / GF