M/s. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2074/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58008 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 12-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 12; 2; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI D BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2074/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999-2000 M/S. SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD., 88, MOUNT ROAD, GUINDY, CHENNAI 600 032. [PAN:AAACS4668K] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE V(1), CHENNAI 600 034. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 12.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.03.2012 ORDER PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) V, CHENNAI DATED 30.09.2011 IN CIT(A)-V/ITA NO. 78/ 2007-08 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI K.E. B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVEN UE. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SEVEN GR OUNDS OF APPEAL IN WHICH GROUND NO. 1 AND 7 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND REQUIRE NO ADJUDICATION BY US. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.2 22 2074 074074 074/M/1 /M/1 /M/1 /M/11 11 1 2 3. THE SECOND GROUND IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GRANTED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING ITS SUBMISSION, FURNISHING NECESSARY DETAILS FOR CLAIM FOR DEPRECIA TION AND SUBSCRIPTION TO CLUBS AND PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED O NE MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR MAKING ITS SUBMISSIONS AND FURNISHING NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 4. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BY THE CIT(A). T HE CIT(A) POSTED THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 17.03.2009 AND 03.11.2009 ON WHICH D ATES, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT(A). LATER, THE RE IS A CHANGE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT(A). THE SUCCESSOR CIT(A) ISSUED N OTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE ON 20.08.2010 AND LATER ON AFTER A GAP OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR I.E. ON 02.09.2011 THE DATE OF HEARING WAS FIXED. THEREF ORE, IN OUR VIEW, IT SHALL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO RESTORE THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.2 22 2074 074074 074/M/1 /M/1 /M/1 /M/11 11 1 3 REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. WE, THEREFORE, S ET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE CI T(A). 6. SINCE, WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES IN APPEAL AFRESH, THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED I N THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR ADJUDIC ATION BY US. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.03.2012. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE - PRESIDENT (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 12.03.2012 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.