Sri. Manjunath Rajshekar, Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1345/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 134521114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSAN THOMAS JOSE
• Assessee Lawyers: H GURUSWAMY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBNAL BANGALORE BENCH B, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.BARATHVAJA SANKAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1345(B)/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SHRI MANJUNATH RAJSHEKHAR, THE DCIT, NO.574, II B MAIN, II STAGE, CIRCLE-21), II BLOCK, NAGARBHAVI, BANGALORE BANGALORE-560 072 PAN NO.ACHPM3194J VS APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEEE BY : SHRI H.GURUSWAMY, CA REVENUE BY : SMT. SUSAN THOMAS JOSE, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 31-07-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-07-2012 O R D E R PER SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25-08- 2011OF CIT(A)-I, BANGALORE, RELATING TO AY: 2007-09 . 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWED LIABILITY OF RS.63,59,421/- TOWARDS M/S TYCO ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT.LTD.,AND RS.1,97,05,260/- TOWARDS M/S TYC O ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS PVT.LTD., THE CONFIRMATION RECEIVED BY THE AO FROM THESE PARTIES SHOWED THAT THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS DUE WER E ITA NO.1345(B)/2011 2 RS.30,83,081/- AND RS.1,97,04,585/- RESPECTIVELY. THUS, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.32,76,340/- IN THE CASE OF M/S T YCO ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT.LTD., ANDRS.675/- IN THE CASE OF M/S TYCO ELECTRONICS SYSTEM PVT.LTD., IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, WHEN THIS DIFFERENCE WAS POINTED OUT, THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO AN ADDITION OF DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT TO THE RETURNED INCOME. 3. IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION SO MADE IN THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME . THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AGAINST THE ORDER OF AO IMPOSING PENALTY. NOTICES OF HEARINGS WERE SERVED ON THE AS SESSEE ON 30-06- 2011, 15-09-2011 & 30-09-2011 FIXING THE DATES OF H EARING ON 27- 07-2011, 29-09-2011 & 25-10-2011 RESPECTIVELY. THE AR APPEARED ON 08-08-2011, 22-08-2011 & 02-09-2011, BUT NO ARGU MENTS WERE PUT FORTH, BUT EVERY TIME FURTHER TIME WAS ONLY SOU GHT. ON 15-09- 2011, THE AR APPEARED AND FILED A LETTER OF WITHDRA WAL FROM REPRESENTATION AS UNDER DEAR SIR, SUB: WITHDRAWING FROM REPRESENTING MR.MANJUNATH RAJ SHEKHAR ITA NO.05/2010-11 AY: 2007-08 REG. WE WOULD LIKE TO INFORM YOU THAT WE ARE WITHDRAWING FROM THE ABOVE CASE. WE REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY ADDRESS ALL COMMUNI CATIONS HEREIN AFTER DIRECTLY TO THE APPELLANT MR.MANJUNATH RAJSHEKHAR. THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY, FOR MSSV & CO CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT SD/- S. RAMASUBRAMANIAN PARTNER ITA NO.1345(B)/2011 3 IT APPEARS THAT FURTHER NOTICES WERE SENT ON 15-09- 2011 AND 30-09- 2011 BY THE CIT(A). SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. BEFORE US LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE EARLIER COUNSEL WITHDREW FROM BRIEF ON 15-09-2011 A ND THE APPEAL AS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION ON 25-11-2011. IT WAS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE COULD NOT ENGAGE ANOTHER COUNS EL WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD AS HE WAS SUFFERING FROM ACUTE STOMACH AILMENT. IT IS THE PLEA OF THE ASSSSEEE THAT THE DOCTORS ADVISED T HE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BED REST. IT WAS THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT TH E ORDER OF TH CIT(A) SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) ON MERITS AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON MERITS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CASE RELATES TO IMPOSIT ION OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITA NO.1345(B)/2011 4 CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS, AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TR EATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 31-08-201 2 SD/- SD/- (N.BARATHVAJA SANKAR) (N.V.VASUDEV AN) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE: D A T E D : 31-08-2012 AM* COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-I, BANGALORE. 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE