Vincons Constructions, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2083/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86257 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SUHRITH PARTHASARATHY
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI .. , ! , ' #$ BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2083/MDS/2014 ' % &% / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S VICONS CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.3A, THIRD FLOOR, 40/12, JEYAMKONDAR APARTMENTS, MURRAYS GATE ROAD, ALWARPET, CHENNAI - 600 018. PAN : AACCV 1161 E V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI - 600 034. (!(/ APPELLANT) (*+!(/ RESPONDENT) !( , - / APPELLANT BY : SH. SUHRITH PARTHASARATHY, ADVOCATE *+!( , - / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT . , / / DATE OF HEARING : 02.02.2015 01& , / / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.02.2015 / O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING T HE ORDER DATED 20.03.2014, PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, CHENNAI AND IT RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2 I.T.A. NO. 2083/MDS/2014 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD . THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LIMITATIO N BY 40 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED A PETITION REQUIRING THE BENCH T O CONDONE THE DELAY FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN. ON A PERUSAL OF THE PETITION, WE NOTICE THAT THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE FELL ILL AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE PRESENT APPEAL WITHIN T HE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. 3. WE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS PRELIMINARY ISSUE. HAVING REGARD TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE PETITION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE IN FILING THE PRESE NT APPEAL BELATEDLY. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND A DMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 4. LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE MAIN ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RELATES TO THE PURCHASES AND THE SAID ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE GRO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE VEHICLES USED FOR TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIALS. THE LD. COUNSEL S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE VEHICLE S LISTED OUT AT PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER COULD NOT HAV E BEEN USED TO TRANSPORT MATERIALS, SINCE, ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, SOME OF THE VEHICLES ARE AMBASSADOR CARS, AUTORICKSHAWS, MO PEDS, ETC. 3 I.T.A. NO. 2083/MDS/2014 THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING THE CHARACTER OF VEHICLES FROM THE REGION AL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY IN ORDER TO DEFEND ITS CASE AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DESPITE SEVE RAL OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY HIM. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORD ER OF THE A.O. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OBTAINED THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN VEHICLE S AND IS ACTIVELY PURSUING THE MATTER WITH REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORI TY TO OBTAIN DETAILS WITH RESPECT TO MAINTENANCE OF VEHICLES ALS O. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE TO S UBSTANTIATE ITS CONTENTION. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. VEHEMENTLY OPPOS ED THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL BY SUBMITTING THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS GIVEN AS MANY AS SIX OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL SHOULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED. 7. HAVING HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE SHOUL D BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE LD. CIT (APPEALS). AT 4 I.T.A. NO. 2083/MDS/2014 THE SAME TIME, IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS F AILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTU NITIES GIVEN TO IT. UNDER THIS SET OF FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ENTERTAINED SUBJECT TO PAYMENT O F COST. WHEN THIS WAS POINTED OUT, THE LD. COUNSEL READILY AGREE D TO PAY THE COST DETERMINED BY THE BENCH. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND REMIT THE MATTER TO HIS FI LE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF ` 10,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE INCO ME- TAX DEPARTMENT, ON OR BEFORE 7 TH FEBRUARY, 2015. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), UPON SATISFYING HIMSELF BY THE PAYMEN T OF COST, SHOULD REHEAR THE APPEAL AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS T REATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSI ON OF HEARING ON THE 2 ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ) ( .. ) (VIKAS AWASTHY) (B.R. BASKARAN) ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, A /DATED, THE 2 ND FEBRUARY, 2015. KRI. 5 I.T.A. NO. 2083/MDS/2014 B , *'/C D &/ /COPY TO: 1. !( /APPELLANT 2. *+!( /RESPONDENT 3. . E/ () /CIT(A)-III, CHENNAI-34 4. . E/ /CIT, CHENNAI-III, CHENNAI-34 5. FG *'/' /DR 6. GH% I /GF.