Marg Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 262/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61003 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 234B; 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.262/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 MARG LTD MARG AXIS 4/318 RAJIV GANDHI SALAI KOTIVAKKAM CHENNAI 600 041 [PAN AACCM8370G] VS THE DY. CIT COMPANY CIRCLE IV(1) CHENNAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 18-04-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-04-2012 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) V, CHENNAI, DATED 25.11.2011. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN ANY CASE HAS BEEN IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY AND NATURAL J USTICE. 2. THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN ASSESSING AGRICULTURAL I NCOME OF RS.15,50,893/- FROM PROFIT ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AS BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME U/S 2(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. I.T.A.NO.262/2012 :- 2 -: 3. THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN LAW, FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I N MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.70,67,600/-. UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 READ WITH RULE 8D O F THE INCOME TAX RULE,1962 4. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS IGNORED FACT THAT YOUR ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE A NY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OR INDIRECT EXPENSES, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER RULE 8D AS A SLI CE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED. 5. THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN APPLYING PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES RETROSPECTIVELY. 6. THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAS ERRED IN LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN LEVYING ADDITIONAL INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT ANY BASIS OF THE SAME . 7. THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 271 (1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 8. THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PRE JUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 9. THAT THE APPELLANT PRAYS LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, SUBSTITUTE OR AMEND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 10. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL V) DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCI PLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 11. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE RAISED EITHER PRIOR TO OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING ON THE GROUND THAT SHRI SUJI T KUMAR MOHANTY, DGM TAXATION, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMPANY, WA S OUT OF STATION FOR ONE MONTH FOR FINALIZATION OF THE ACCOUNTS OF T HE COMPANY. THE BENCH WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL CAN BE DISPOS ED OF WITHOUT THE I.T.A.NO.262/2012 :- 3 -: ASSISTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE APPE AL WAS HEARD EX- PARTE QUA THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE AND DISPOSED OF B Y CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIX ED FOR HEARING ON 22.7.2011, 12.10.2011, 1.11.2011, 8.11.2011 AND 18. 11.2011. THE ASSESSEE FILED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WITHOUT BEIN G PRESENT ON THE DATES OF HEARING. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E WAS DISMISSED FOR NON-APPEARANCE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE DATES F IXED FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD.CIT (A) IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY SHOULD DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE ON MERITS ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PUT IN APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED BY HIM SO THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO MEET ITS CASE IN A PPEAL BEFORE A HIGHER FORUM. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THA T THE DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT PROPER AND JUSTI FIED. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND REMAND TH E MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON M ERITS AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTI ES. I.T.A.NO.262/2012 :- 4 -: 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.4 .2012. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 20 TH APRIL, 2012 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR