Jennath Mahmooda, CHENNAI V. ITO Non Corporate Ward 3(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2715/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2712 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-06-2021
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 147

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , , BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2715/CHNY/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 MRS. JENNATH MAHMOODA, NEW NO. 25, OLD NO. 14, WALLACE GARDEN 3 RD STREET, CHENNAI 600 006. [PAN:ACLPJ5417F] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 3(1), CHENNAI. ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SURESH PERIASAMY, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 17.06.2021 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.06.2021 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 4, CHENNAI, DATED 31.08.2017 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. BESIDES CHALLENGING THE CONFIRMATIONS OF ADDITION OF .57,455/- AS WELL AS ADDITION OF .35 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY RAISING SPECIFIC GROUND. 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DELAYED BY 14 DAYS, FOR WHICH, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT FOR I.T.A. NO. 2715/CHNY/17 2 CONDONATION OF THE DELAY, TO WHICH; THE LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION. CONSEQUENTLY, SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE DELAY OF 14 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL STANDS CONDONED AND ADMITTED THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON 15.12.2010 DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF .61,257/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ACT IN SHORT] ON 15.07.2011. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN THE CASE OF SMT. SHAFIQ FAZEELA (PAN: AAFPF8180P), THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD A HOUSE PROPERTY [FLAT A SITUATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING KNOWN AS PATEL SADAN AT 40-C, OFF. PEDDAR ROAD, MUMBAI 400026 ADMEASURING ABOUT 900 SQ. FT. BUILT UP AREA SITUATED ON PLOT BEARING C.S. NO. 679 & 2/690(PART) OF MALABAR HILL DIVISION, DISTRICT AND SUB-DISTRICT MUMBAI] TO SMT. SHAFIQ FAZEELA AND HER HUSBAND SHAFIQ MOHAMMED SHAH (PAN: AAJPS3460P) FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF .2,00,00,000/-. THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING OUT OF THE ABOVE TRANSACTION WAS NOT OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND VERIFICATION OF DETAILS AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED BY ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT .76,72,212/- AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. ON APPEAL, SINCE I.T.A. NO. 2715/CHNY/17 3 THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RESPONDED/REPRESENTED HER CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BY REFERRING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF REPRESENTATIONS FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE CONFIRMATIONS OF ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND THUS, HE PRAYED FOR AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLATE ORDER SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INSTITUTED ON 21.04.2016 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) ISSUED NOTICE OF HEARING ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT AGAINST THE NOTICE OF HEARING, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT AND IN SOME OCCASIONS THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM ASSESSEES SIDE. HOWEVER, AGAINST THE NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 31.07.2017 FIXING THE APPEAL ON 09.08.2017, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 08.08.2017 SOUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT BY REQUESTING FOR ONE MONTHS TIME AS HE WAS NOT WELL, WHEREAS, THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 16.08.2017 AS A FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT THE CASE. SINCE THERE WAS NO I.T.A. NO. 2715/CHNY/17 4 RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) COMPLETED THE APPELLATE ORDER WITHOUT ANY SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, SINCE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED FOR ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND BY CONSIDERING THE ABOVE PLEA, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT HER CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) TO MEET THE ENDS OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IN CASE, THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO REPRESENT HER CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF EVIDENCES, ETC. AS MAY BE REQUIRED, THE APPELLATE ORDER ALREADY PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) STANDS SUSTAINED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 17 TH JUNE, 2021 IN CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (S. JAYARAMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, 17.06.2021 VM/- /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. ( ) /CIT(A), 4. /CIT, 5. /DR & 6. /GF.