Smt Manjula Sreenivas , Bangalore V. Income TAx Officer Ward-2(2)(3), Bangalore

ITA 2023/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5633 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR G MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: H GURUSWAMY ITP

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2023/ BANG/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 08 - 09 SMT. MANJULA SREENIVAS, NO. 117, GROUND FLOOR, NIHAR APPTS, 10 TH & 11 TH CROSS, COCONUT AVENUE, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE 560 003. PAN: AFKPS 0744Q VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (2) (3), (ERSTWHILE WARD 9(4)), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI H. GURUSWAMY, I.T.P. RESPONDENT BY : DR. G. MANOJKUMAR, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 08.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 .0 1 .201 8 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, BANGALORE DATED 30.08.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE IMPUGNED EX-PARTE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30-0 8-2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), IS OPPOSED TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE APPELLAT E ORDER EX-PARTE WITHOUT PROVIDING THE SUFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE OPPOR TUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO REPRESENT THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLA NT AND ALSO THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,78,491/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE APPELLANT ITA NO.2023/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 3 CLAIM TOWARDS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR STAMP DU TY, REGISTRATION FEE, BROKERAGE AND OTHER EXPENSES FOR IMPROVEMENT O F THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF ALTERNATION TO HAVE PROPER CIVIC AMENITIE S. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. FOR THESE GROUNDS AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT YOUR HONBLE AUTH ORITY BE PLEASED TO PASS ORDERS SETTING ASIDE THE EX-PARTE APPELLATE ORDER DT: 30-08- 2016 FOR RE-ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES ON MERITS OF THE CASE AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER GRANTING SUCH O THER RELIEF AS YOUR HONBLE AUTHORITY MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF J USTICE AND EQUITY. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR O F ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) IS EX-PARTE ORDER. HE SUBMITTED TH AT AS PER PARA NO. 3 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE LAST NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 2 9.07.2016 WAS SERVED THROUGH THE AO FOR HEARING ON 29.08.2016 AND THE IMPUGNED O RDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY CIT(A) ON 30.08.2016. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE WAS PREOCCUPIED IN SOME URGENT WORK AND THEREFORE, HE C OULD NOT APPEAR ON 29.08.2016 BUT HE HAD APPEARED ON 02.09.2016 AND MA DE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND SUBMITTED OTHER DOCUMENTS SUCH SALE DEED DATED 11.09.2006 AND SOME OTHER DOCUMENTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE MADE AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK ON PAGES 1 TO 21 OF PAPER BOOK. SIN CE THE ORDER WAS ALREADY PASSED BY CIT(A) ON 30.08.2016, THE SAME COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY HIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE M ATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER CONSID ERING THESE .THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT ON 13.06.2016, THE ASSESSEE SENT A LETTER OF ADJOURNMENT THROUGH REGIS TERED POST AS PER THE COPY ALONG WITH THE REGISTERED POST RECEIPT ISSUED BY TH E POSTAL DEPARTMENT MADE AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 26 OF PAPER BOOK. ON PAGES 1 TO 21 OF PAPER BOOK IS COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH IS SAID TO BE MAD E AVAILABLE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 02.09.2016. BUT THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS B EEN PASSED BY CIT(A) ON 30.08.2016 AND THEREFORE, THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS A ND OTHER DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY CIT(A). UNDER THESE FACTS, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE RE STORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) ITA NO.2023/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 3 FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DO CUMENTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY ASSESSEE. HENCE I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) A ND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION. THE ASSESSEE CAN B RING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD BEFORE CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS AND CIT (A) SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 11 TH JANUARY, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.