Smt. Kamla B Lulla, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1199/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64517 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 1199/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SMT. KAMLA B. LULLA, MAC SUNNY SIDE, FLAT NO.5, GROUND FLOOR, NO.5, ALAGAPPA ROAD, PURASAWALKAM, CHENNAI 600 084. PAN AACPL1775H VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE-XIII, CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSE L DATE OF HEARING : 14 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 O R D E R PER DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2005-06. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E- ITA 1199/2012 :- 2 -: TAX(APPEALS)-XII, AT CHENNAI ON 15.03.2012. THE AP PEAL ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SEC.143(3), R EAD WITH SEC.147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DI SMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE FOR THE REASON OF NON- APPEARANCE. 3. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME- TAX(APPEALS), WE FIND THAT HE HAS MADE A TECHNICAL DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIM. HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE FOR DEFAULT OF NON-APPEARANCE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE VA RIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THIS IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4. SECONDLY, A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED ANY O F THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF ADDITIONS MADE BY HIM. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE APPLIED HIS MIND IN A MORE OBJECTIVE MANNER. 5. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR REM AND TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO THAT HE PASSES A REASONABLE AS SESSMENT ORDER AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN EFFECTIVE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING ITA 1199/2012 :- 3 -: HEARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIREC TED TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND TO PRODUCE NECESSARY DETAILS AND EVIDENCES IF SHE SO DESIRES. 6. IN RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 14 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (DR.O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 14 TH NOVEMBER , 2012 MPO* COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR