Gurdeep Singh Wasu, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward -4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1312/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53760 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PHANI RAJU
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN,J.M ITA NO.1312/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 GURDEEP SINGH WASU, HYDERABAD. ( PAN AAEPW 6900D) VS ITO, WARD - 4(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.RAMA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PHANI RAJU DATE OF HEARING: 3-11-2011. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 3-11-2011. O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-V, HYDERABAD DATED 8-6-2010 AND IT P ERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS BEFO RE US:- I. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS B OTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. ITA NO.1312/HYD/2011- GURDEEP SINGH WASU, HYD. L.L ========================== 2 II. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PASSING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT ON 29-10-2008. THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HA VE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT WHILE PROCESSING THE RETUR N OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ENTITLED TO MA KE ANY ADDITIONS AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT TH ERE IS ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. III. THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT A NOTI CE WAS NOT ISSUED TO THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE AND THE ORDER IS NOT PASSED IN THE NAME OF THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER UNDER SEC. 154 IS NOT VALID. IV. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITI ON OF RS.1,99,782/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. V. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) PASSED EX PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PARTICIPATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND PRAYED FOR AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASS ESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) HAS PASSED HIS ORDER DATED 8-6-2010 WITHOUT PARTICIPATION OF T HE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTI CE, WE SET ASIDE THE ITA NO.1312/HYD/2011- GURDEEP SINGH WASU, HYD. L.L ========================== 3 ENTIRE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND DIRECT HIM TO AFFORD AN OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE ARE REMITTING THE M ATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, WE REFRAIN TO DEAL WITH THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3-11-2011 SD/- SD/- ( SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER . ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DT/- 3-11-2011. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, DOOR NO.3 - 6 - 643, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERA BAD. 2. ITO, WARD - 4(1), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A) - V, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT, AP, HYDERABAD. 5. THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD. JMR*