M/s. Sidhi Smelters Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1849/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52184 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR
• Assessee Lawyers: DR ANITA SUMANTH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ------- ITA NO. 1849/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. SIDHI SMELTERS P. LTD., (NOW KNOWN AS M/S. SABARI ALLOYS & METALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED), NO.114, II FLOOR, TRADE CENTRE, WALLAJAH ROAD, CHENNAI-600 002. V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-VI(3), CHENNAI. [PAN: AAICS1660B] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR. ANITA SUMANTH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 16-12-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16-12-2011 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CI T(A)V, CHENNAI IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-V/ITA NO. 601/2008-09 DT. 28-10-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. I.T.A. NO. 1849/MDS/2011 2 2. DR. ANITA SUMANTH, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN LIMINE STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AVAILED OF THE OPPORTUNITY GRANTED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT BEFORE THE PREDECESSOR CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SUBMISSIONS AND THE IN CUMBENT CIT(A) WHO HAS PASSED THE ORDER HAD ISSUED NOTICE OF HEARING ONLY ONCE ON WHICH DATE THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT FOR AN ADJOURNMENT VIDE LETTER DATED 21-10-2011 WHICH HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE OFFICE OF THE LEARNED CIT( A). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT SHE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL AR E RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. TO THIS THE LE ARNED JR. STANDING COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION IN RESTORING THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE FOR NON-PROSECUTION AND AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APP LICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON 21-10- 2011 AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LE ARNED CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL ARE LIABLE TO B E RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AND WE DO SO. IN THE CI RCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR RE- I.T.A. NO. 1849/MDS/2011 3 ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16/12/2 011. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 16 TH DECEMBER, 2011. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE