V.Srinivasan, Salem V. ITO, Krishnagiri

ITA 1882/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8291 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR SH T S SUBRAMANIAM

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL S M C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1882/MDS/2015 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI V. SRINIVASAN, CONTRACTOR, C/O SH. T.S. SUBRAMANIAM, FCA, 47, TOWN RAILWAY STATION ROAD, SALEM 636 001. PAN : ATEPS 3824 M V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), 41-1, KRN EAST PARALLEL ROAD, KRISHNAGIRI 1. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR SH. T.S. SUBRAMANIAM, CA ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 11.12.2015 2!( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.01.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SALEM, DA TED 30.12.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2 I.T.A. NO.1882/MDS/15 2. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERIT OF THE CASE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. ACCORDING TO TH E LD. COUNSEL, THE POWER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS COTERMINOUS WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS TO EXAMINE THE MATERIAL AVAILABL E ON RECORD AND IS EXPECTED TO DECIDE THE SAME ON MERIT. THE LD. C OUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NO POWER TO DIS MISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS) TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME ON MERIT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) GAV E SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES. HOWEVER, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. ACCORDIN GLY THE SAME WAS DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDER THE SCHEME OF INCOME-TAX ACT, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS EMPOW ERED TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT BY CONSIDERING THE SOURCE OF INCOME 3 I.T.A. NO.1882/MDS/15 WHICH WAS OMITTED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(APPEALS) ALSO HAS COTERMINOUS POWER AS THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEN THE APPEAL CAME BEFORE THE CIT(APPEA LS), IT IS FOR HIM TO EXAMINE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS AND FIND OUT WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM ALL SOURCES. IF ANYTHING LEFT OUT AF TER ISSUING SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS BOUND T O ENHANCE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. UNFORTUNATELY, THE CIT(APP EALS) HAS NOT DONE THAT EXERCISE. HE SIMPLY REJECTED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN P ROSECUTING THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE ONEROUS TASK ASSIGNED TO THE CIT(APPEALS) UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THIS TRIBUN AL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NO POW ER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THE CIT(APPEALS), BEING THE SENIOR-MOST OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT, CAN CALL FOR THE MATERIAL/RECORDS FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIS POSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT WITHOUT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE T HE CIT(APPEALS) THAT CANNOT BE A REASON TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR N ON-PROSECUTION. IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OMITTED TO CONSID ER ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT BY REJECTING 4 I.T.A. NO.1882/MDS/15 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NEG LECTING HIS POWER TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT. SUCH AN ATTITUDE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH RAISED IN THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER HE SHALL DECIDE THE SAME AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) AF TER ISSUE OF NOTICE, IT IS FOR THE CIT(APPEALS) TO DISPOSE OF TH E APPEAL ON MERIT ON THE BASIS OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 1 ST JANUARY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 1 ST JANUARY, 2016. KRI. 5 I.T.A. NO.1882/MDS/15 . ,156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A), SALEM 4. 0 81 /CIT, SALEM 5. 69 ,1 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.