Ram Textiles, Karur V. DCIT, Trichy

ITA 18/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96153 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! # $ , % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO .18/MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) M/S.RAM TEXTILES, C/O.R.SUDAMANI, 36 (OLD NO.13A) RAMANUJAM NAGAR, KARUR-636 002. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II 44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TRICHY. PAN: AAAFR6579D ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 3 RD SEPTEMBER, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2015 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TIRUCHIRA PALLI DATED 28.11.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DENYING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC(3) AND DEPRE CIATION ON WINDMILL. 2. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMITS T HAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DECIDED THE AP PEAL 2 ITA NO.18/MDS/2015 EX-PARTE, PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SHOULD HAV E GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT REJECTING THE ADJOURNMENTS FILED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE. 3. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO SERIOUS OBJEC TION IN REMITTING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, AS THERE WAS NO PROPER REPRESENTATION BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO WHICH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED AND SOUGHT ADJOU RNMENT. ON SOME OCCASIONS, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, THUS THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DISMISSED THE APPEAL STATING THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE OR PRODUCE ANY EVID ENCE TO PROVE THE CLAIMS RAISED IN THE APPEAL MEMO. ON GOIN G THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SHOULD HAVE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE 3 ITA NO.18/MDS/2015 ASSESSEE FOR PROVING ITS CLAIMS. THUS, IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHO SHALL DECI DE THE ISSUES IN APPEAL AFRESH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, A FTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( ( *+ ) ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) - / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER * - / JUDICIAL MEMBER * /CHENNAI, / /DATED 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2015 SOMU 12 32 /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 4 () /CIT(A) 4. 4 /CIT 5. 2 7 /DR 6. /GF .