K.C.Marketing, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1290/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8373 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V JAGADISAN
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ' # . $ , & ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICI AL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1290/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) M/S. K.C. MARKETING, 16/18, GENERAL MUTHIA STREET, 108, RAM LAKHAN CHAMBER 1 ST FLOOR SOWCARPET, CHENNAI-600 079. VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE-VIII, CHENNAI. PAN: AAFFK4837Q ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. V.JAGADISAN, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : MR. SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 28 TH JULY,2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 TH OCTOBER, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- 13, CHENNAI DATED 21.03.2016 IN ITA NO.167/CIT(A)- 13/2005-06 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 250( 6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS A PPEAL, HOWEVER, THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:- (I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 2 ITA NO.1290/MDS/2016 1) REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES ON WHICH TDS IS NOT DEDUCTED RS. 13,19,661/- 2) REIMBURSEMENT OF SALARY RS.11,500/- 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED AN ORDER DATED 16.02.2009 GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN ITA NO.478/ 07-08 DATED 06.10.2008. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD AP PEALED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY HIM VIDE ORDER DATED 21.03.2016 IN ITA NO.167/CIT(A)-13/2005-06, AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE AS SESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER DID NOT GIVE ANY NOTICE OF HEARING WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) . FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO DID NOT CONSIDER THE MATE RIALS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF REMA ND REPORT 3 ITA NO.1290/MDS/2016 AND HAD SIMPLY FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER. HE THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT ONE MORE OPPOR TUNITY MAY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SO THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ABLE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE PROPERLY. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR A ND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. FURTHER FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 16.02.2009 WE F IND THE SAME TO BE CRYPTIC AND IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER. THE REFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE REQUEST OF THE LD.A.R IS REASONABLE AND HENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT BACK THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 4 ITA NO.1290/MDS/2016 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 18 TH OCTOBER , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( ' # . $ ) ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 18 TH OCTOBER, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF