M/s. Narayan Industries, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2131/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58143 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JUNIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2131(MDS)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S. NARAYAN INDUSTRIES, NO.37-A, KAMARAJ NAGAR, EMAVOOR, CHENNAI- 600 057. PAN AACFN 6678 F VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD-XI(2), CHENNAI 600 006. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KEB RE NGARAJAN, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 19 TH MARCH, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 TH MARCH, 2012 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEV ANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2007-08. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-IV AT CHENNAI ITA 2131/11 :- 2 -: DATED 16.11.2011 AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT C OMPLETED UNDER SEC.143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITIONS IN TH IS FILE AGAINST THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE ADDIT IONS WERE CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS ). BUT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS PASSED AN E X PARTE ORDER. IT IS THE CASE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX(APPEALS) THAT ATLEAST FIVE OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE A SSESSE, BUT NO APPEARANCE WAS MADE AND THEREFORE, HE HAD TO PROCEE D TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX PARTE. 3. ON GOING THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DET AILS PRIMARILY EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESE NT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED TH AT NO EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM EITHER. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FEEL THAT THE GRIEVAN CE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AFRESH BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ISSUES ARE SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR ITA 2131/11 :- 3 -: FRESH CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GI VING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON MONDAY, THE 19 TH OF MARCH, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 19 TH MARCH, 2012. MPO* COPY TO: (1) PETITIONE R (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.