SAMI BHARATKUMAR, CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW - 16 (2), CHENNAI

ITA 2247/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8108 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 20

Judgement Text

, [ ] , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D [SMC] BENCH, CHENNAI , BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2247/CHNY/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 SAMI BHARATH KUMAR, NO. 29, PADDY FIELD ROAD, PERAMBUR, CHENNAI 600 011. [PAN: ANQPB7309E] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 16(2), CHENNAI. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : MS. R. ANITA, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 20.08.2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.08.2020 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 4, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 69/2018- 19/AY:2015-16/CIT(A)-4 DATED 26.06.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015- 16. NONE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND MS. R. ANITA, JCIT REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NON- COOPERATIVE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AS ALSO BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THOUGH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING GOT NO EVIDENCE TO PRODUCE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO.2247/CHNY/19 2 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THOUGH SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS INVESTMENTS. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NEGLIGENT THERE ALSO. EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THOUGH THE APPEAL HAS BEEN POSTED FOR HEARING ON MULTIPLE DATES, THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE GRANTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR READJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH AUGUST, 2020 AT CHENNAI. SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 20.08.2020 VM/- /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. ( ) /CIT(A), 4. /CIT, 5. /DR & 6. /GF.