Sri Siddhartha Jhajharia , Bangalore V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3)(4), Bangalore

ITA 2241/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6027 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KARUPPUSAMY S R
• Assessee Lawyers: S V RAVISHANKAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH SMC-B, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2241 (BANG) 2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 10) SHRI SIDDHARTHA JHAJHARIA, APPELLANT C/O. SATI POLYMER, SHOP NO. 16, 5 TH CROSS, MANGAMMANAPALYA, MAIN ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE 560068. PAN. ACQPJ5080K VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4 (3)(4), BANGALORE. RES PONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. V. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI KARUPPUSAMY S. R., ADDL. CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 01-08-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03-08-2018 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) 4 BANGALORE DATED 30.11.2017 FOR A. Y. 20 09 10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS BUT AT T HE OUTSET, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT (A) IN PARA 1 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE HEARING WAS FIXED BY HIM ON THRE E DATES I.E. 04.09.2017, 07.11.2017 AND 20.11.2017 BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE APPROPRIATE COMPLIANCE AND HE PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 30.1 1.2017. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A FACT THAT ON FIRST TWO DATES, LEARNE D AR OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE CIT (A) BECAUSE OF SOME PERSONAL PROB LEMS BUT ON THE LAST DATE I.E. ON 20.11.2017, HE WENT TO THE OFFICE OF CIT (A ) FOR APPEARING BEFORE HIM BUT CIT (A) WAS BUSY IN A MEETING AND HIS OFFICE ASKED THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR ON A LATER DATE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WAITING FOR A NEXT HEARING NOTICE BUT NO NOTICE WAS RECEIVE D AND THE ORDER ITSELF WAS ITA NO. 2241(BANG)2018 2 SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE AND IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO CI T 9A) FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS OF TH E PRESENT CASE, NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. I FIND THAT ON FIRST TWO DAT ES, THIS IS ADMITTED POSITION THAT NO ONE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE CI T (A). REGARDING THE THIRD DATE ON 20.11.2017, AS PER CIT (A) NONE APPEARED BU T AS PER THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARING BEFORE US, HE WENT TO THE OF FICE OF CIT (A) FOR APPEARING BEFORE HIM BUT CIT (A) WAS BUSY IN A MEET ING AND HIS OFFICE ASKED THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR ON A LATER DATE. B E THAT AS IT MAY BUT I FEEL THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO CIT (A) FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, I DO N OT REPRODUCE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MAKE NO COMMENT ON THE M ERIT OF THE CASE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE D ATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- ( A .K. GARODIA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, D A T E D : 03.08.2018 /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.