M/s. Space N Place Promoters Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 3010/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3978 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: N V LAKSHMI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !', $ '% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.3010/CHNY/2016 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S SPACE N PLACE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., NO.18, V.V. KOIL STREET, PERIAMET, CHENNAI - 600 003. PAN : AAKCS 0817 N V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 6(4), CHENNAI. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : MS. N.V. LAKSHMI, CA ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JCIT 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 23.01.2019 23( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.02.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -15, CHENNAI, DATED 16.06.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. MS. N.V. LAKSHMI, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 30 DAYS IN FILI NG THIS APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE , THE ASSESSEE- 2 I.T.A. NO.3010/CHNY/16 COMPANY REQUESTED ONE SHRI RANGAN KANNAN, WHO IS A STATUTORY AUDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. SHRI RANGAN KANNAN WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT HE HAS TO ENGAGE SOMEONE ELSE FOR FILING THE APPEAL. WHEN THE ASSES SEE-COMPANY APPROACHED HIM, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE APPEAL WAS NO T FILED, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY APPROACHED A COUNSEL TO FILE TH E APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESEN TATIVE, THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE T HIS TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HEARD MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. 4. HAVING HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSE SSEE AND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS TH AT THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BY THE A SSESSEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. THEREFORE, THE DELAY OF 30 DAYS I S CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 5. NOW COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE APPEAL, MS. N.V. LAKSHMI, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL ON MERIT. THE GROUNDS RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID N OT APPEAR BEFORE HER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE CIT(APPEAL S) IS EXPECTED TO 3 I.T.A. NO.3010/CHNY/16 DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSE E HAS TO FILE MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. THEREFORE, ACC ORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. 6. WE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALS O. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSE E, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E ON MERIT. THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE HER. THE FACT R EMAINS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) BEING THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AN D HAVING COTERMINOUS POWER AS THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS EXPECTE D TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES ON MERIT. UNFORTUNATELY, SUCH AN EXERCISE WAS NOT DONE. THER EFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED. SINCE THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE CLAIM S THAT SHE IS GOING TO FILE MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF TH E MATERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISS UE AFRESH IN 4 I.T.A. NO.3010/CHNY/16 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 6 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !') ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESA N) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 6 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. KRI. . ,167 87(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+/ APPELLANT 2. ,-*+/ RESPONDENT 3. 0 91 () /CIT(A)-15, CHENNAI-34 4. CIT- 6, CHENNAI-34 5. 7: ,1 /DR 6. ' ; /GF.