A.Venkateswara Rao, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Hyderabad

ITA 1630/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66451 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C R PATI
• Assessee Lawyers: B N SIRISH
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1630/HYD/2010 : ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08 SHRI A.VENKATESWARA RAO, HYDERABAD ( PAN - AAYPA 1586 F) V/S. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 3(2), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.N.SIRISH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C.R.PATI CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING 8.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 8.11.2012 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-IV, HYDERABAD DATED 30.9.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR IN M/S. SERVOMAX INDIA LTD., HYDERABAD, DERIVING INCOME BY WAY OF SALARY FROM THE SAID COMPANY, BESIDES HAVING PROPERTY INCOME AND BUSINESS INCOME FROM HIS PROP RIETARY CONCERNS VIZ. M/S. SLG ELECTRONICS, M/S. PRECIOUS METAL CONVERTERS AND M/S. PRECISION CONTROLS. ITA NO.1630/HYD/2010 SHRI A .VENKATESWARA RAO, HYDERABAD 2 3. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVEN GROUNDS, THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE COVERED BY GROUNDS NO.3 TO 7, RE LATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF THE ENTIRE DISCOUNT OF RS.1,30,05,984 TO M/S. SLG ELECTRONICS; M/S. PRECIOUS METAL CONVERTERS AND M/S. PRECISION CONTROLS, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SALES ARE ONLY MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERNS. WHIL E GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL AND NEEDS NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION, IN GROUND NO.2, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISP OSING OFF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE AND HE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING THE TRANSACTIONS. 4. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE L OWER AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TAKING UP GROUND NO.2, WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, FOR CONSIDERATION FIRST, WE FIND THAT THOUGH ONE SHRI B.N.SIRISH, WHO ALSO REPRESENTS THE ASSE SSEE EVEN BEFORE US, INITIALLY PARTICIPATED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS B EFORE THE CIT(A), THE ORDER ULTIMATELY HAD TO BE PASSED EX-PARTE ON MERITS. THE C IT(A) IN PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, HAS DISCUSSED THE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES A FFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE, BY GRANTING ADJOURNMENTS AS REQUESTED BY THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, AND THE JUSTIFICATION FOR ULTIMA TELY DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE ON MERITS. THOUGH THIS FACTUAL POSITION DISCUSSED BY THE CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED, THE LEARNED AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE US PRAYED FOR ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BEING GIV EN, FOR PUTTING FORTH THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER. CONSI DERING TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE PRAYER OF THE LEARNE D AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT FORT H THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A), WE FIND IT JUST AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FO R DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. WE DO SO ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT T HE CIT(A) TO ITA NO.1630/HYD/2010 SHRI A .VENKATESWARA RAO, HYDERABAD 3 DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM AFRESH, ON ALL THE I SSUES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARI NG TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED, TO COOPERATE AND COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES AND DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT(A) IN THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT MAY BE TAKEN UP IN PURSUANCE OF THIS ORDER, AND ENABLE EAR LY DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE CIT(A). 5. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ON GROUND NO.2, WE ARE NO T INCLINED TO GO INTO THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE MERI TS OF THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8.11.2012 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED/- 8 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI A.VENKATESWARA RAO, C/O. M/S. VENUGOPAL & CHENOY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, DOOR NO.4-1-889/167/2, TILAK ROAD, HYDERABAD 500 001. 2. 3. 4. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 3(2), HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IV HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX III, HYDERABAD 5 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S.