ITO, CHENNAI V. Hidesign India Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 3124/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7879 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.3124/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-2(3), 514, WANAPARTHY BLOCK, CHENNAI-34. VS M/S.HIDESIGN INDIA PVT.LTD., NEW NO.20/4, OLD NO.57/3, 3 RD FLOOR, ANUGRAHA APARTMENTS, 1 ST STREET, KAMARAJ AVENUE, ADYAR,CHENNAI-600 020 . PAN: AACCH0586R ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. P.RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR. R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 ND MARCH, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- II, CHENNAI DATED 21.08.2014 IN ITA NO.717/2013-14 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S, 250(6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS A PPEAL. HOWEVER, BOTH THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AGREED THAT THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 2 ITA NO.3124 /MDS/2014 80-IC OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE FIRST TIME WITHOUT GIV ING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXA MINE THE SAME, THEREBY VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46AO F THE I.T. RULES. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY GRA NTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IC OF THE ACT BASED ON T HE FRESH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM FOR THE FIRST TIME TH EREBY VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE ACT. TH E LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTROVERT TO T HE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE. FURTHER, BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED TO REMIT THE MATTE R BACK TO THE FILE OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CO NSIDERATION. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES AND EXAMINING THE MATER IALS ON RECORD BEFORE US, WE FIND THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEA RNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TO BE CORRECT. IT APPEA RS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S 3 ITA NO.3124 /MDS/2014 ADMITTED FRESH EVIDENCE AND PROCEEDED TO GRANT RELI EF TO THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE SAME WITHOUT PROVIDING THE LE ARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE SAM E. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY RE MIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R DE NOVO CONSIDERATION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 2 ND MARCH, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 2 ND MARCH, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF