MAYTAG UDYOG P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD (3)(2)-2, MUMBAI

ITA 2882/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1883 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUM EET KUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, JM AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, AM I.T.A.NO.2822/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. PADMANAGAR CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., 101, KALPATARU SYNERGY, OPP.GRAND HYATT HOTEL, SANTACRUZ (E), MUMBAI 400 055. PAN: AAACP 2971 J VS. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 36, MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. VASANTI PATEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUMEET KUMAR O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 20 TH MARCH, 2009 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPE ALS), CENTRAL IV, MUMBAI, AND RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE AS SESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 26.4.2010 MADE A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT BUT THE SAME WAS NOT PRESSED. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS REJECTED. 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS OUT OF WHICH GROUND NO. 1 IS IN RESPECT OF OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, WHICH READS AS UNDER: THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) E RRED IN DISMISSING THE APPELLANTS APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF NON- ATTENDANCE/NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S.250 FIXING THE HEARING ON 20.02.20089 AND 13.03.2009. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND IT SEEMS FILED SOME DEED ON CORRECTION REGARDING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY PURC HASED. FOR THIS REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSES SING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THIS CORRECTION DEED BEFORE HIM. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) DESPITE NOTICE ON 27.0 2.2009 AND 13.03.2009. ITA NO.2822/M/09 M/S.PADMANAGAR CONSTRUCTIONS :P. LTD. 2 ACCORDINGLY, LEARNED CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE WITHO UT HAVING THE BENEFIT OF THE REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MAINLY SUBMITTED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN AND IN ANY CA SE THE DEED ON CORRECTION HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) AND THER EFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY AND FIND THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ORDER IS SET ASIDE A ND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO HIS FILE WITH DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER PRO VIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2010. SD. SD. (D.K. AGARWAL) (T. R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED THE 30 TH APRIL, 2010. KN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. THE CIT, CENT.III, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT(A), CENTRAL -IV, MUMBAI 5. THE DR C BENCH, MUMBAI BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI