Shri. M.V.Ramachandra, Bangalore V. DCIT-Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 1948/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8512 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AR V SREENIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: K R PRADEEP

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL BANGALORE BENCH SMC, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1948 TO 1951(BANG) 2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008 09, 2009 10 & 2011 12 TO 2012 13) SHRI M. V. RAMACHANDRA, H. M. GENEVA HOUSE, NO. 156, 1SR N BLOCK, 6 TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560010 TAN NO. ADJPR1893G APPELLANT VS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (1), BANGALORE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. R. PRADEEP, C. A. REVENUE BY : SHRI AR. V. SREENIVAS, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 13-02-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-02-2017 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS, ALL THESE APPEAL S WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEAR NED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE COMBINED ORDER OF CIT (A), THE ISSUES I N DISPUTE WERE NOT DECIDED ON MERIT AND HE HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT I NTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEALS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTI CE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) FOR A DECISION ON M ERIT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IF IT IS RESTORED BACK, HE UNDERTAKES THAT PROPER C OMPLIANCE WILL BE MADE. ITA NOS.1948TO1951(BANG)2016 2 3. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN THE FAC TS OF THE PRESENT CASE, I FEEL IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO CIT (A) FOR A DECISION ON MERIT BECAUSE I FEEL THAT EVEN IF ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AND DID NOT FILE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE CIT (A), HE SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERIT AS PER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND SINCE HE HAS N OT DONE SO, THE MATTER HAS TO GO BACK TO HIS FILE FOR A DECISION ON MERIT. ACCORDINGLY, I SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE MA TTER TO HIS FILE FOR A DECISION ON MERIT AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD MAKE PROPER COMPLIA NCE IN THIS ROUND AS UNDERTAKEN BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE: D A T E D : 15.02.2017 AM* COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER, AR, ITAT, BANGALORE ITA NOS.1948TO1951(BANG)2016 3 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COM ES TO THE SR. P. S. .. 4 DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE O RDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER DOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT . 10. DATE ON WHI CH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 11 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. 12 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13 DATE OF DISP ATCH OF ORDER