S.P. Subramani, Erode V. ITO, Erode

ITA 2563/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7887 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTHJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR ERODE
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, B/ SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B/ SMC BENCH, CHENNAI . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2563 /MDS./2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11) MR.S.P.SUBRAMANI, C/O.S.SRIDHAR,ADVOCATE, 112/1,PERIYAR STREET, ERODE 638 001. VS. THEITO, WARD 2(5), ERODE. PAN AVJPS 4097 H ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) ! ' # / APPELLANT BY : MR.S.SRIDHAR,ERODE ADVOCATE $% ! ' # / RESPONDENT BY : MR.A.V.SREEKANTH,JCIT, D.R & ' ' ( ) / DATE OF HEARING : 08.12.2016 *+ ' ( ) /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.12.2016 / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-3, COIMBA TORE DATED 27.05.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ITA NO. 2563/MDS/2016 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FIVE ELABORATE GROUNDS: - 1) THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS BAD AND ERRONEOUS IN L AW AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2) THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE. 3) THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT AT ALL CONSIDERING T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS.2 & 5, EACH GROUND DEALING WITH NOT FOLLOWING THE MAN DATE AS PER THE RESPECTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT . 4) THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FAC T THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY RETURN OF INCOME BUT BASED ON CONCESSION BY THE ITP. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD.A.R SUBMITTED TH AT GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 WERE RAISED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AS FOLLOWS AND NOT ADJUDICATED BY LD.CIT(A) :- 4) THE ORDER OF THE AO IS BAD IN LAW IN AS MUCH AS THE AO HURRIEDLY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WITHOUT R ESORTING TO ANY OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS LIKE ISSUANCE OF NOT ICE U/S.142(1) AND/OR ISSUING A SHOW-CAUSE PROPOSING BE ST JUDGEMENT ASSESSMENT FOR NON-COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE ISSUED, ETC. 5) THE AO ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE MANDATE OF TH E NEWLY INSERTED SEC.151, AS EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF THE N OTICE U/S.148 DATED 11/09/2015. ITA NO. 2563/MDS/2016 3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTH ORITIES. WE FIND THAT THESE GROUNDS WERE NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE LD.C IT(A). HENCE, WE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) TO GIVE FR ESH FINDINGS ON THESE GROUNDS. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 08 TH DECEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 08 TH DECEMBER, 2016 . K S SUNDARAM. , ' $(-. /.( / COPY TO: 1 . ! / APPELLANT 3. & 0( () / CIT(A) 5. .3 4 $(5 / DR 2. $% ! / RESPONDENT 4. & 0( / CIT 6. 4 6 7 ' / GF