Sri. Jayaram suvarna, Udupi V. DCIT, Udupi

ITA 1519/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 151921114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL JT
• Assessee Lawyers: H ANIL KUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1519/BANG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI JAYARAM SUVARNA, C/O. RAO & SWAMI, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, 2/1, CONNAUGHT ROAD, BENGALURU 560 052. PAN: AGZPS 7603J VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, UDUPI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI H. ANIL KUMAR, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL, JT. CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 28.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.07.2015 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2.4.2014 OF THE CIT(APPEALS), MYSORE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS AN INDIVIDUAL. H E CARRIES ON BUSINESS OF A DEALER IN HERO HONDA PRODUCTS UNDER THE NAME & STYLE, JAIDEV MOTORS. ITA NO.1519/BANG/2014 PAGE 2 OF 4 FOR AY 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCO ME ON 31.10.2006 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.20,89,937. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT BY AN ORDER DATED 24.12.2008, DET ERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF NIL BY MAKING SEVERAL ADDITIONS TO THE RE TURNED LOSS. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). 3. THE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 21.3.12 AN D 31.5.12. FINALLY APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 20.3.14. IT APPEAR S THAT THE APPEAL WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN HEARD BY CIT(APPEALS), MANGALORE WAS IN FACT HEARD BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AT MYSORE. THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDE R WHICH THE CIT(APPEALS), MYSORE HEARD THIS APPEAL IS NOT EMANA TING FROM THE RECORDS. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APP LICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT BEFORE CIT(A), MANGALORE ON 20.3.2014 SEEKING ADJOU RNMENT OF THE HEARING FIXED ON 20.3.2014. THIS HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT TO T HE NOTICE OF CIT(APPEALS), MYSORE. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE C IT(A), MYSORE HAS MERELY OBSERVED IN PARA 2 AS FOLLOWS:- 2. NONE APPEARED. THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APP ELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. 4. PERUSAL OF THE CIT(A), MYSORE ALSO SHOWS THAT HE HAD NOT ISSUED ANY NOTICE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL FIXED ON 20.3.1 4 TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE EX PARTE AND ITA NO.1519/BANG/2014 PAGE 3 OF 4 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. 5. IN GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX PARTE. IT HAS BEEN ALLEGED THAT THE EX PARTE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT IS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT H E HAS NOT BEEN AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THEREFORE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND CIT(A) SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO DECID E THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE OFFICE OF CIT(A), MANGALORE ON 20.3.2014 WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE US. WE ALSO FIND F ROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER TO ANY NOTICE OF HEARING ON 20.3.2014 HAVING BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BY THE CIT(APPEALS). THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS T HEREFORE SET ASIDE AND THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH, AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSE E. ITA NO.1519/BANG/2014 PAGE 4 OF 4 8. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION ON GROUND NO.2, THE OTHE R GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH CHALLENGE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO DO NOT REQUIRE ANY CONSIDERATION AT THIS STAGE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JULY, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) ( N.V. VASU DEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 30 TH JULY, 2015. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENTS 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.