J.Vijay Shankar, Visakhapatnam V. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, Visakhapatnam

ITA 306/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0183 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M NARAYANA RAO
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Bonafide belief; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

ITA NO.306/VIZAG/2013 J. VIJAY SHANKAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . . . . , ,, , . . . . , , , , % % % % BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . .. ./ // / I.T.A.NO.306/VIZAG/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ) J. VIJAY SHANKAR VISAKHAPATNAM VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 VISAKHAPATNAM [ PAN: ACEPT 5002D] ( , ,, , / APPELLANT) (-., -., -., -., / RESPONDENT ) , / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI, AR -., / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. NARAYANA RAO, DR / 3 / DATE OF HEARING : 19.11.2015 / 3 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2015 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE, IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 17.12.12 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO.306/VIZAG/2013 J. VIJAY SHANKAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM REMUNERATION FROM THE COMPANY M/S. AISWARYA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. A SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE AC T) WAS CONDUCTED ON 22.8.2008. CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH OPERATION, THE ASS ESSEE CASE WAS CENTRALISED WITH CIT-1, VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 25.3.20 09. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 29.10.2009 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.69,54,200/-. THE CASE WAS COVERED UNDER SCRUTIN Y BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTE R DUE PROCESS OF LAW COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.75,40,200/- AS AG AINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.69,54,200/-. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 25.1.2012 INFOR MED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID THE ADMITTED TAX, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ASKED, WHY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE REJECTED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ADMITTED TAX H AS NOT BEEN PAID ITA NO.306/VIZAG/2013 J. VIJAY SHANKAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 3 BEFORE FILING THE APPEAL. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTIC E, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 7.12.12 SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD REQUESTE D THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR ADJUSTMENT OF CASH AVAILABLE IN PD ACC OUNT OF RS.32,67,500/- AGAINST THE DEMAND RAISED. BESIDES, IT WAS REQUEST ED TO ADJUST THE REFUND DUE TO M/S. ADPL AGRO COMPANY OF RS.6,14,464 /-. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT HE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIE F THAT THE ASSESSEE REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT OF PD CASH AS WELL AS REFUND DUE TO ASSESSEE FROM ANOTHER COMPANY HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO THE DEMAN D RAISED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT CAME TO KNOW THAT THE A.O. HAD ADJUSTED THE AVAILABLE CASH IN P.D. ACCOUNT AS WELL AS REFUND DUE, IN THE ORDER OF PREFERENCE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THEREFORE, THER E IS A SHORTFALL OF RS.2,57,000/-. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER COMING TO KNOW THE FACT THAT THERE IS A SHORTFALL O F RS.2,57,000/-, HE HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,57,000/- ON 7.12.2012 AND IN FORMED THE CIT THAT THE ENTIRE ADMITTED TAX HAS BEEN PAID AND REQU ESTED TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A), AFTE R CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSE, HELD THAT IT IS MA NDATORY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PAY THE ADMITTED TAX BEFORE FILI NG THE APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THEREFORE, REJECTED THE ASSESSEES ITA NO.306/VIZAG/2013 J. VIJAY SHANKAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 4 CONTENTION AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. AGGR IEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSE, SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PAID THE ADMITTED TAX BEFORE FILIN G THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), BUT PAID BEFORE CIT(A) PASSED HIS ORDER . THE A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS CONSIDERED THE REQUEST FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJUSTMENT OF CASH SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH AND LYING IN THE PD ACCOUNT. THE A.R. FURTHER, SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD FILED A LETTER ON 18.1.2011 AND REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO ADJUST REFUND DUE OF RS.6,14,464/- IN THE CASE OF M/S. AISWARYA D EVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AGAINST THE DEMAND IN ASSESSEES CASE. THE A.R. FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY AFTER CAME TO KNOW THAT TH ERE WAS A SHORTFALL OF RS.2,57,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, H E HAD PAID THE AMOUNT ON 7.12.2012 AND FILED THE COPIES OF CHALLAN S TO THE CIT(A) FOR HAVING PAID THE ADMITTED TAX BEFORE CIT(A) PASSED H IS ORDER. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN LIMINE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.D.R. SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4) OF THE ACT, IT WAS MAN DATORY ON THE PART OF ITA NO.306/VIZAG/2013 J. VIJAY SHANKAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 5 THE ASSESSEE TO PAY THE ADMITTED TAX BEFORE FILING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RIGH TLY DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A). THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN VIE W OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISION, IN THE CASE OF S. ALAGA R SWAMY VS. ITO 296 ITR 43 ONCE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PAID THE ADMITTED TAX BEFORE FILING THE APPEAL, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAI NTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4) OF THE ACT. HENCE , REQUESTED TO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A .R. OF THE ASSESSE, MADE IT CLEAR THAT INITIALLY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PAID THE ADMITTED TAX BEFORE FILING THE APPEAL, BUT PAID BEFORE CIT(A) PA SSED HIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT HE WAS ON THE BONAFIDE BELI EF THAT THE A.O. HAS ADJUSTED THE CASH LYING IN THE P.D. ACCOUNT AS PER THE REQUEST, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. BUT, IT WAS CAME TO HIS N OTICE THAT THE A.O., HAD ADJUSTED THE AMOUNT LYING IN THE P.D. ACCOUNT I N THE ORDER OF PREFERENCE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 TO 2008 -09, THEREFORE, THERE WAS A SHORTAGE OF RS.8,71,040/-. THE ASSESSE , IMMEDIATELY FILED A LETTER DATED 18.1.2011 AND REQUESTED THE A.O. TO AD JUST THE REFUND DUE TO M/S. ADPL AGRO FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,14,464/- AN D ALSO PAID THE ITA NO.306/VIZAG/2013 J. VIJAY SHANKAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.2,57,000/- ON 7.10.2012 AND IN FORMED THE CIT FOR HAVING PAID THE ADMITTED TAX AND REQUESTED TO ADMIT THE APPEAL. 7. IT IS A UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NO T PAID THE ADMITTED TAX BEFORE FILING THE APPEAL. BUT, FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ON THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT T HE DEPARTMENT HAS ADJUSTED CASH AVAILABLE IN P.D. ACCOUNT FOR THE DEM AND AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. BUT, IMMEDIATELY AFTER CO MING TO KNOW THE FACT THAT THERE IS SHORTFALL OF RS.8,71,041/-, HE H AD FILED A LETTER AND REQUESTED THE A.O. TO ADJUST THE REFUND DUE TO ONE OF ITS ASSOCIATES AND ALSO PAID THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.2,57,000/- ON 7. 12.2012. ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE ENT IRE ADMITTED TAX BEFORE THE CIT(A) PASSED HIS ORDER. NO DOUBT, PAYM ENT OF ADMITTED TAX BEFORE FILING APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT U/S 249(4) OF THE ACT AND THERE WAS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE SAID PROPOSITION. HOWEVER, FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE, THE ASSESSEE MADE IT A CASE THAT, HE HAD PAID THE FULL AMOUNT OF TAX BEFORE THE HEARING OF APPEAL BY CIT(A) AND THIS FACT WAS NOT D ISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CI T(A) SHOULD HAVE TAKEN INTO COGNIZANCE, THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS PAID THE ADMITTED TAX, BEFORE HE PASSED HIS ORDER. BUT, THE CIT(A) H AS DISMISSED THE ITA NO.306/VIZAG/2013 J. VIJAY SHANKAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 7 APPEAL, SIMPLY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS A NON-CO MPLIANCE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4) OF THE ACT. ONCE, THE CIT(A) CAME TO KNOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE ADMITTED TAX BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING, THE CIT SHOULD HAVE ADMITTED ASSESSEES APPEAL AND DISPOSED OF IT ON MERITS, INSTEAD OF DISMISSING IN LIMINE WITHOUT ADJ UDICATING THE ISSUES ON MERITS. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEES AUT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE, REFERRED THE ITAT DELHI BENCH DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF D. D. RESORTS PRIVAT1E LTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 38 CC H 66, WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, UNDER SIMILAR SE T OF FACTS HELD AS UNDER: CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF RAKESH KUMAR GARG VS. DCIT AND ANOTHER DECISIONS IN CASE OF 3. K.CHATURVEDI VS. ACIT (2004 ) 82 TTJ 284 HAD HE/4 THAT ON PLAIN READING OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SE CTION 249 SHALL REVEAL THAT IF ASSESSEE SHOWED SUFFICIENT REASONS F OR LATE FILING OF HIS APPEALS, THEN SUCH DELAY CAN BE CONDONED AND CONTRO VERSY WOULD BE SILENCED ON MERIT. SIMILARLY, IF AN ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR COMPLYING REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 249(4) A ND HAS NOT FILED APPEAL WITHIN TIE - PROVIDED U/S 249(2). SUBSEQUENT TO EXPIRY OF LIMITATION HE MADE COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 249(4) AND FILED APPEAL WITH A PRAYER OF CONDONATION OF DELAY THEN I T WOULD BE IN DISCRETION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO SEE WHET HER SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR LATE FILING OF APPEAL EXIST OR NOT. IF CIT(A) HAD A RRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT SUFFICIENT REASONS EXIST THEN AGAIN THE CONTRO VERSY WOULD BE DECIDED ON MERIT. THUS, ON CONJOINT READING OF SUB-SECTION (3) AND (4), IT WAS INFERRED THAT DEFECT ARISES DUE TO NONCOMPLIANCE OF SECTION 249(4) WAS A CURABLE ON AND IN A GIVEN CASE IF TRIBUNAL WAS SATI SFIED THAT THERE EXIT SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR CURING SUCH DEFECTS AFTER EX PIRY OF LIMITATION, IT WOULD BE IN REALM OF TRIBUNAL'S DISCRETION TO RESTO RE SUCH MATTERS TO FILE OF CIT(A) FOR DECIDING CONTROVERSY ON MERIT BE CAUSE SUB-SECTION (I) OF SECTION 254 PROVIDES WIDE POWERS TO TRIBUNAL FOR PASSING SUCH ORDERS THEREON AS IT THINKS FIT IN INTEREST OF JUST ICE. WHERE ASSESSEE HAD ITA NO.306/VIZAG/2013 J. VIJAY SHANKAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 8 DISCHARGED HUGE TAX LIABILITY OF MORE THAN RS. 75 L AKHS IN INSTALLMENTS. THUS, IT WOULD BE TOTALLY UNFAIR FOR NOT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO HIM FOR DISPUTING ADDITIONS MADE BY AO ON MERIT. APPEAL F ILED IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 249(4) WOULD BE TERMED AS A DEFECTIVE ONE A ND MOMENT DEFECT IS CURED THEN THOSE CAN BE DISPOSED OF ON MERIT SUB JECT TO LIMITATION. COURTS AND QUASI- JUDICIAL BODIES ARE EMPOWERED TO CONDONE DELAY IF A LITIGANT SATISFIES THE COURT THAT THERE WERE SUFFIC IENT REASONS FOR AVAILING REMEDY AFTER EXPIRY OF LIMITATION. SUCH RE ASONING SHOULD BE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT. IT WAS APTLY SAID THAT FACTS SHOULD BE VIEWED IN NATURAL PERSPECTIVE HAVING REGARD TO COMP ULSION OF CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CASE WHERE IT WAS POSSIBLE TO DR AW INFERENCES FROM FACTS AND WHERE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY DISHON EST OR IMPROPER MOTIVE ON PART OF ASSESSEE IT WOULD BE JUST AND EQU ITABLE TO DRAW SUCH INFERENCE IN SUCH A MANNER THAT WOULD LEAD TO EQUITY AND JUSTICE. TOO HYPERTECHNICAL OR LEGALIZED APPROACH SHOULD BE AVOIDED IN LOOKING AT A PROVISION WHICH MUST BE EQUITABLY INTERPRETED AND J USTLY ADMINISTERED. (PARA 5) IN ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FACT OR CIRCUMSTAN CE VIEW TAKEN BY A CO-ORDINATE BENCH WHERE ONE OF US (LD. ACCOUNTANT M EMBER) WAS A PARTY HAS TO BE FOLLOWED IN JUDICIAL PROPRIETY. IN F ACTS OF PRESENT CASE ADMITTEDLY AT TIME OF FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A ) TAX DUE ON INCOME RETURNED WAS NOT PAID. OBJECTIVE OF SECTION 249(4) WAS TO ENSURE PAYMENT OF TAX ON INCOME RETURNED BEFORE ADMISSION OF APPEA L. CIT(A) CANNOT BE FAULTED WITHIN NOT TREATING APPEAL AS ADMITTED. HOW EVER CONSIDERING JUDICIAL PRECEDENT AND FACT THAT TAX ON RETURNED IN COME WAS PAID BEFORE PASSING OF ORDER THUS ON A CONSIDERATION OF DECISIO N RELIED UPON IT WAS VIEWED THAT IF APPEAL WAS FILED WITHOUT PAYMENT OF TAX ON RETURNED INCOME BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REQUIRED AMOUNT OF TAX WAS PAID, APPEAL SHOULD BE TREATED AS ADMITTED ON PAYMENT OF TAX AND TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON MERITS. PAYMENT OF TAX AFTER FILLING OF APPEAL BEFORE IT IS TAKEN UP FOR DISPOSAL, WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO VA LIDATE DEFECTIVE APPEAL. COORDINATE BENCHES HAD TAKEN VIEW THAT REQU IREMENT OF PAYMENT OF PRESCRIBED TAX AT STAGE OF FILING OF APPEAL BEFO RE FIRST APPELLATE WAS ONLY DIRECTORY AND NOT MANDATORY. NO DOUBT PAYMENT OF TAX DUE ON INCOME RETURNED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE FILING OF AN APP EAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT AND AS P ER HON'BLE HIGH COURT AS SUCH NONCOMPLIANCE RENDERED APPEAL NON-MAI NTAINABLE AS PER SECTION 249(4) OF ACT. THERE WAS NO DISPUTE WITH SA ID PROPOSITION HOWEVER IN FACTS OF PRESENT CASE MADE OUT BY ASSESS EE THAT REQUIRED TAX WAS PAID BEFORE HEARING OF APPEAL BY COMMISSION ER WAS A FACT WHICH WAS DISTINGUISHABLE AND LEGAL POSITION QUA FA CT WAS CONSIDERED BY CO-ORDINATE BENCHES. ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS SET ASIDE AND ISSUE WAS RESTORED BACK TO FILE OF CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO D ECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING ASSESSEE A REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. APPEAL OF ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED. (PARA'S 6 &7) ITA NO.306/VIZAG/2013 J. VIJAY SHANKAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 9 9. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, IN T HE CASE OF J.R. CHAUHAN VS. CIT (2009) 311 ITR 303 WHILE, DEALING W ITH SIMILAR ISSUE HELD AS UNDER: 3 . LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT FILING OF APPEAL AGAIN WAS MERELY AN IRREGULARITY AND THE SAI D APPEAL COULD BE TREATED AS AN APPLICATION FOR REVIVAL OF APPEAL WHI CH WAS DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF DEFAULT IN COMPLIANCE OF S. 249(4) OF THE ACT. ALTERNATIVELY DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDONED. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT DEFAULT IN COMPLIANCE OF PROV ISIONS OF S. 249(4) OF THE ACT STOOD MADE UP BY SUBSEQUENT ACTION OF AD JUSTING THE TAX, THE CASE FOR REVIVAL OF APPEAL WAS MADE OUT. THOUGH FRESH APPEAL FILED WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE, THE SAME COULD BE TREAT ED AS AN APPLICATION FOR REVIVAL OF APPEAL EARLIER DISMISSED . INSTEAD OF CONDEMNING THE APPELLANT UNHEARD ON MERITS OF THE C ONTROVERSY, THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD AND DECIDED ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS ORDER OF CIT(A) AND BY TREATING THE APPEAL AS APPLI CATION FOR REVIVAL IN THE EARLIER APPEALS DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF NONCOMPLIAN CE OF PROVISIONS OF S. 249(4) OF THE ACT, CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE APPEALS ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 10. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO APPLYING THE RATIOS OF THE JUDGEMENTS REFERRED ABOV E, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, THAT THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ADMITTED THE A SSESSEES APPEAL ONCE, HE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE ADMITTED TAX HAS BEE N PAID BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. IN OUR OPINION, THE CIT(A) WAS ER RED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL, INSTEAD OF HEARD IT ON MERITS, THEREBY CAUS ED INJUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND ALSO HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND RESTOR E THE MATTER BACK TO ITA NO.306/VIZAG/2013 J. VIJAY SHANKAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 10 THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO ADMIT TH E APPEAL AND DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY OF HEARING. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH NOV15. SD/- SD/- ( (( ( . .. . ) ) ) ) ( (( ( . . . . ) ) ) ) ( (( ( V. DURGA RAO ) )) ) ( (( ( G. MANJUNATHA) / // / JUDICIAL MEMBER / // / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM: 6 / DATED : 30.11.2015 VG/SPS / - 7 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :8 1. , / THE APPELLANT SHRI J. VIJAY SHANKAR, 56, OCEAN DRIVE LAYOUT, NEAR SAGAR NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. -., / THE RESPONDENT THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM 3. : / THE CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 4. : () / THE CIT (A)-1, HYDERABAD, 5. -, , / // / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . . . . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // @A ( SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / // / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM