Sri Davanam Suryanarayana Panduranga Setty , Bangalore V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2411/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2318 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K BIJU
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 234B; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2 411 /BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 12 - 13 SRI. DAVANAM SURYANARAYA PANDURANGA SETTY, LEGAL HEIR SRI. D. P. NAGESH, NO. 263, M. G. ROAD, KANAKPURA, BENGALURU 562 117. PAN : ABUPP 5932 D VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(1), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SMT. SHEETHAL BORKAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI. M. K. BIJU, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 05 .0 9 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 .0 9 .2018 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER IN THE MANNER HE DID. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE HEADS VIZ., (A) SALES PROMOTION, (B) TRAVELING EXPENSES , (C) VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND (D) CONVEYANCE WERE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND ACCORDINGLY HE OUGHT TO HAVE REFRAINED FROM MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,00,770/-. ITA NO.2411/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT FROM THE MAGNITUDE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT, THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED WAS VERY FAIR AND REASONABLE AND HE OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE, THERE BEING NO EXTRAORDINARY LEAP IN THE QUANTUM OF EXPENDITURE COMPARED TO THE PAST YEARS. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION WAS INCIDENTAL AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT AND ACCORDINGLY HE OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT AND REFRAINED FROM MAKING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. 6. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LEVYING THE INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE DISALLOWANCES ARE EXCESSIVE, ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED IN TOTO. 8. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED MY ATTENTION THAT CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. DESPITE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT AFFORDED OPPORTUNITY AND DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE THAT TOO NOT ON MERIT. 3. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM ON MERIT, AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.2411/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 7 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (A. K. GARODIA) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE. DATE: 7 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. /NS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENTS 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE