M/s. Saptagiri Packaging Unit - II, Pondicherry V. ITO, Pondicherry

ITA 179/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61391 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAMADITYA IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: V S JAYAKUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 179/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 M/S. SAPTAGIRI PACKAGING UNIT-II, C-98, 17 TH CROSS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, METTUPALAYAM, PONDICHERRY 605 009. PAN AAQFS8986L (APPELLANT) VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(2), DP THOTAM, PUDUCHERRY. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.S.JAYAKUMAR, ADVOCA TE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIKRAMAD ITYA, IRS, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 26 TH JULY, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 TH JULY, 2012 O R D E R PER DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2003-04. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-X II AT CHENNAI DATED 2.12.2011. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE ITA 179/12 :- 2 -: ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SEC.143(3) READ WITH SEC . 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESEN T APPEAL READ AS BELOW : 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 02.12.2011 PASSED AGAINST THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE I TO U/S.143(3) READ WITH SECTION 254 IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ITO DI D NOT APPRECIATE THE ENTIRE ORDER TO THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.790/MDS/2007 C BENCH DATED 09.05.2008 WHEREIN, IN PARA 5 THE TRIBUNAL HAS CLEARLY OBSERVED THE FAC TS RELATING TO THE WORKERS EMPLOYED INCLUDING CASUAL, TEMPORARY OR ADHOC THROUGH CONTRACTOR AS WELL AS THROUGH OTHER AGENCIES SHALL BE INCLUDED. 3. THE CIT(A), FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ITO I NSTEAD OF REFERRING TO THE ENTIRE ORDER PREFERRED ONLY TO PARA 6 OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND WENT ON TO HOLD THAT THE NUMBER OF WORKERS WERE LESS THAN 10 AND CONSEQUENTLY DENIED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS WELL SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNALS AND SO THE DENIAL OF ITA 179/12 :- 3 -: DEDUCTION U/S.80IB IS PERVERSE AND CONTRARY TO THE SCHEME OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. ON HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE FIND THAT THE CRUCIAL ISSUE RELATING TO THE GROUNDS ARE NOT CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE. THEREFORE, THEIR ORDERS ARE SET ASIDE AND THE FILE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVIN G AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON THURSDAY, THE 26 TH OF JULY, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 26 TH JULY, 2012 MPO* COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR