Shri S.S.Singh, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 291/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57874 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K P GOPAKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: M SWAMINATHAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI C BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 291/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 S.S. SINGH, 15A, VIII AVENUE, ASHOKNAGAR, CHENNAI 600 083. [PAN: AAAPS7499C] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD V (2), CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M. SWAMINATHAN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI K.P. GOPAKUMAR, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 2 4 . 0 1 .201 2 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.01.2012 ORDER PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) VIII, CHENNAI DATED 30.12.2009 IN ITA NO. 12 6/06-07 PASSED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. SHRI M. SWAMINATHAN, ADVOC ATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI K.P. GOPAKUMAR, JCI T REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AP PEALS, CHENNAI IS OPPOSED TO FACTS LAW AND IN CIRCUMSTANCE OF THIS CA SE. 2 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS HAS ERR ED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INCUR RED A HUGE LOSS IN THE LINE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.2 22 291 9191 91/M/1 /M/1 /M/1 /M/10 00 0 2 OF BUSINESS AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPE ALS WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON JUST DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS HAS ERRE D IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIM ONLY REGULAR EXPENSES SUCH AS TRAVELING EXP, POSTAGE AND TELEPHONE ETC. W ITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT THE APPEAL WAS DISMISS ED. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS HAS ERRE D IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS GENUIN ELY CLAIMED THE LOSS FROM AMWAY BUSINESS AND HE IS HOLDING ALL THE DETAILS AN D BOOKS TO EXPLAIN THE SAME WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS DISMISSED THE APPEAL IS TOTALLY WRONG AND O PPOSED TO LAW AND NATURAL JUSTICE. 5. FOR THE FOREGOING GROUNDS AND FOR THE GROUNDS THAT MAY BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DELETED AND JUSTICE BE RENDERED. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY DISMISS ING THE SAME. HE PRAYED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR READJUDICATING THE APPEAL AFTER ALLOWING THE ASSESS EE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 4. THE LD. DR, DID NOT HAVE OBJECTION TO THE MATTE R BEING RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR READJUDICATING OF THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE LD. AR HAS FILED BEFORE US CERTAIN EVID ENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED, WHICH WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE L OWER AUTHORITIES. AS THE EVIDENCE NEEDS VERIFICATION BEFORE ACCEPTANCE, BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US AGREED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.2 22 291 9191 91/M/1 /M/1 /M/1 /M/10 00 0 3 OFFICER FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION AND THEREAFTER A DJUDICATION AFRESH AS PER LAW. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT O N 27.01.2012. SD/ - SD/ - (GEORGE MATHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 27.01.2012 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.