Sri. Chandrashekar Aradhya Srikanth, Mysore V. Income-tax officer, Ward-2(3), Bangalore

ITA 1320/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7743 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR NAGENDRA REBELLY BENGALURU
• Assessee Lawyers: RAGHAVENDRA R CHAKRAVARTHY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1320/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 SHRI CHANDRASHEKAR ARADHYA SRIKANTH, PROP. SHREE CONSULTANTS, # 724, SMT. VEERAMMA MEMORIAL COMPLEX, RAMANUJA ROAD, FORT MOHALLA, MYSURU 577 004. PAN: ALBPS 4955N VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), MYSURU. APP ELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE & SHRI RAGHAVENDRA R. CHAKRAVARTHY, CA RESP ONDENT BY : DR. NAGENDRA REBELLY, ADDL.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU . DATE OF HEARING : 31.05 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.07. 2018 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2017 OF THE CIT(APPEALS), MYSORE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2012-13 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF NIL AFTER CLAIMIN G DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT OF RS.24,53,698 BEING 100% OF PROFITS EARNE D ON BIOMEDICAL WASTE COLLECTED. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS DENIED BY THE AO IN THE ORDER ITA NO. 1320/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [TH E ACT] DATED 24.12.2014. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ON THE DISA LLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) FIXED FIRST HEARING OF APPEAL ON 1 9.9.2017 ON WHICH DATE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT( A), BUT AN UNDATED LETTER WAS RECEIVED SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEAR ING. THE CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE PERSON WHO SOUGHT THE ADJOURNMENT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM. HE THEREFORE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ON MERIT S AS PER LAW EX PARTE . THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSE SSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS FOLL OWS:- 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING UNREASONABLY THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BY REFU SING THE ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT FOR BY A LETTER AND WITHOUT GIVI NG ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES AS PRAYED FOR AND PROCEEDING WITH THE PASSING OF IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE POS TING BEFORE HIM WAS FOR THE FIRST TIME OF THE APPEAL FILED AS EARLY AS 21.01.2015. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DR. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORD ER OF CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IF THE CIT(APPEALS) FINDS THAT A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY A PERSON WHO IS NOT DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN O NE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND BROUGHT IT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AS SESSEE, THE FACT THAT UNAUTHORIZED PERSON HAD APPEARED BEFORE HIM. THE A SSESSEE WOULD HAVE ITA NO. 1320/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 RECTIFIED WHATEVER BE THE DEFECT ON HIS PART. WITH OUT DOING SO, THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE APPE AL EX PARTE , ESPECIALLY WHEN HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS THE FIRST HEARING IN THE APPEAL. I THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) AND R EMAND THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR FRESH C ONSIDERATION BY THE CIT(APPEALS), AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 6 TH DAY OF JULY, 2018. SD/- ( N.V. VASUDEVAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 6 TH JULY, 2018. / D ESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.