Income Tax Officer, Bangalore V. Smt.T.R.Beena, Bangalore

ITA 1331/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7274 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DINESHA
• Assessee Lawyers: B R RAMESH JT BENGALURU
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1331/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2)(2), BENGALURU. VS. SMT. T.R. BEENA, NO.68, MAIN VILLA, 1 ST STAGE, AGBC LAYOUT, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU 560 086. PAN: ADMPR 9043H APP ELLANT RESPONDENT APP ELLANT BY : SHRI P. DINESHA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.R. RAMESH, JT. CIT(DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU DATE OF HEARING : 07.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 .11.2017 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WITHOUT GIVING A SPECIFIC OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AO, TO REBUT THE SAME, WHICH IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A(3). ITA NO.1331/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE UR GED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS MAY BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, TO AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR HAS CO NTENDED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER ADMITTI NG THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT CONFRONTING TO THE AO, THEREFORE I T IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF T HE ACT HAVING NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTI ONS OF THE AO. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) BE SET ASI DE AND MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO HIM TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH, A FTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AO. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED T HAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS AFFORDED DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO , BUT HE DID NOT COME FORWARD. 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 144 OF THE ACT AND BEFORE THE AO RELEVANT EVID ENCE WAS NOT FILED. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEAL S) FOR THE FIRST TIME, BUT THE CIT(APPEALS) WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO TH E AO HAS ADMITTED IT ITA NO.1331/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 3 AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS WHICH AMOUNTS TO VIOLATIO N OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WIT H A DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE APPEAL AFRESH, AFTER AFFORDING OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AO. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE STANDS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( JASON P. BOAZ ) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 10 TH NOVEMBER, 2017. / 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.