Mrs. Bharathi Jain, Bangalore V. CIT, Bangalore

ITA 1302/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8500 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, B, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1302/BA NG/2015 (ASST. YEAR 2009-10) BHARATHI JAIN, NO.4, K.V TEMPLE STREET, SOURASHTRAPET, CHICKPET, BENGALURU. . APPELLANT VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEALS) IV, BENGALURU. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI MOHANKUMAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G KAMALADAR, STANDING COUNSE L DATE OF HEARING : 2-3-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : -3-2017 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) -4, BANGAL ORE DATED 3 RD MAR, 2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP P ITA NO. 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP P ITA NO. 1302/ /B/15 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP P EAL: ITA NO.1302/ /B/15 3 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIERS AND FIL ED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 30/0/2009 DECLARING A TO TAL INCOME OF RS.4,13,350/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1 ) AND SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. NOTICE WAS ISSUE TO ASSESSEE U/S 132(2). THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR A ND THE CASE WAS HEARD. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LE ARNED CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED IT IN LIMINI ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY INFORMATION AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD REPRODUCED THE LETTER FILED BY THE ADVOCATE SHRI JANARDHAN NAIDU AT PARA 2 OF THE ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER : 'THE APPELLANT REFERRED TO ABOVE IS NOT CONTACTING US THOUGH WE HAVE REPRESENTED THE CASE AT THE ASSESSME NT STAGE. WITH REPEATED REMINDERS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RESPONDING TO THE PHONE CALLS AND NOT CO-OPERATING IN ANY MANNER TO REPRESENT THE CASE BEFORE THE APPELLA TE AUTHORITY. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE T O REPRESENT THE CASE BEFORE YOUR HONOUR. WE THEREFORE REQUEST YOU TO SEND FURTHER NOTICES TO THE FOLLOWIN G ADDRESS: SMT. BHARATHI JOIN, PROPX.: MAHAVEER ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIERS, NO. 209-210, S J BUILDING, BCIE LTD., 12TH KM, OLD MADRAS ROAD, DOORAVANINAGAR, NEAR TO UNION BANK OF INDIA, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, ITA NO.1302/ /B/15 4 BANGALORE-5600L6. CONTACT NO. : 080-28533708 MOBILE: [phone]. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO A DDITIONAL GROUNDS FILED BEFORE US TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT. 1. I HAD APPOINTED MR. K JANARDHAN NAIDU TO REPRESENT BEFORE CIT (A) AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER (AO). 2. I HAD PROVIDED ALL THE RELATED INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT FOR TO REPRESENT BEFORE CIT (A) BEFORE I C OULD GO TO MY NATIVE PLACE IE., RAJASTAN FOR MY TREATMEN T PURPOSE. 3. HOWEVER MR. K JANARDHAN NAIDU HAS TAKEN THE ADVANTAGE OF MY POOR HEALTH CONDITION AND HAD NOT E VEN REPRESENTED BEFORE CIT (A) ON TIME. FURTHER WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE MR. K JANARDHAN NAIDU HAS GIVEN IN WRITING TO CIT (A) STATING THAT I HAVE NOT PROVIDED HIM THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS. FURTHER MR. K JANARDHAN NAIDU EVEN DIDN'T BOTHER TO INFORM ME REGARDING THI S MATTER. 4. FURTHER CIT (A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER BASED ON WRITTEN REPRESENTATIVE RECEIVED FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER FILED ANY DOCUME NT NOR COOPERATED WITH THE ADVOCATE AND, THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE I NITIATED AGAINST HER BY TREATING HER EX-PARTE AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WAS CONFIRMED. 7. IF WE LOOK INTO THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE US, IN OUR VIEW, THE REASONS GIVEN ARE PLAUSIBLE AND IT IS A F IT CASE FOR SENDING THE FILE ITA NO.1302/ /B/15 5 BACK TO THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE A PPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT T HE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSE E AND NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE MAY FILE ANY DOCUMENT WHICH SHE FEELS APPR OPRIATE AND PROPER FOR THE JUST AND FAIR ADJUDICATION OF THE CASE BEFORE T HE CIT(A). 8. THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHALL CONSIDER THE REQUEST O F ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS IF ANY FILED IN DUE EARNEST AND ALSO TO G IVE DUE REGARD TO PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE WHERE IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENT BEFORE THE CIT(A) DESPITE BEING ASKED FOR. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH MARCH, 2017 . SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (L ALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER BANGALORE DATED : 15/03/2017 VMS ITA NO.1302/ /B/15 6 COPY TO :1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER ASST. REGISTR AR, ITAT, BANGALORE.