Kanchandevi Challani, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 3213/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8149 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S SUPRIYO PAL IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRINIRAJANI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 3212 & 3213/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012-13 & 2013-2014. SMT. KANCHANDEVI CHALLANI, NO.63, NSC BOSE ROAD, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI 600 079. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 5(1) CHENNAI. [PAN AHBPK 4928K] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MS. S. SRINIRAJANI, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. S. SUPRIYO PAL, IRS, JCIT. ! '# /DATE OF HEARING : 09-01-2017 $% '# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-01-2017 / O R D E R THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDERS DATED 26.09.2016 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, CHENNAI. 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE A DEALER IN SILVER ITEMS AND CHAINS HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2012-2013 DISCLOSING INCOME OF ?8,70,790/- AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 ITA NOS.3212 & 3213/MDS/16. :- 2 -: DISCLOSING INCOME OF ?8,91,350/-. THE ASSESSMENT F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 WAS COMPLETED BY THE LD. ASSESSING O FFICER MAKING AN ADDITION FOR INTEREST OF ?12,01,703/- ON A LOAN WHICH WAS TAKEN OVER BY A FIRM. THERE WAS AN ADDITION OF ?1,05,369/- FO R DIFFERENCE IN OPENING CAPITAL ACCOUNT. ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXE MPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT ON CAPITAL GAINS, ON WHICH THERE WAS AN ADD ITION OF ?2,17,828/-. THERE WAS AN ADDITION OF ?1,76,580/- REJECTING A BILL ISSUED BY M/S. ADJ JEWELLERY P. LTD . 3. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014, THERE WAS A DISALLO WANCE OF ?12,56,415/-. THIS REPRESENTED INTEREST ON LOAN S EARLIER TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. INTEREST ON THESE LOANS AS PER LD. AS SESSING OFFICER WAS TO BE PAID BY THE FIRM WHICH HAD TAKEN OVER THE LOA N AND NOT ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL FOR BOTH YEARS BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ASSESSEE HAD FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 29.08.2016. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE OF ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 19.09.2016 IN THE OFFICE OF T HE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REQUESTING FOR AN ADJOURNMENT AND POSTING OF THE CASES IN THE THIRD WEEK OF OCTOBER, 2016. HOWE VER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT GIVE T IME SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE BUT CHOOSE TO DECIDE THE APPEALS BASE D ON THE WRITTEN ITA NOS.3212 & 3213/MDS/16. :- 3 -: SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 29.08.2016. AS PER LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOTHING WAS MENTIONED IN THE ADJOURN MENT LETTER REGARDING ANY REQUIREMENT TO COLLECT ANY FURTHER I NFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. HE DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE YEARS. 5. NOW BEFORE ME, LD AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRONGL Y ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT TIME BEFOE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) FOR COLLECTING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE CASE FROM T HE ASSESSEE FOR FILING FURTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DECIDING THE CASE EX-PARTE WITHOUT GRANTING ADJOURN MENT SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE RESULTED IN GROSS INJUSTICE AND VIOLA TION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 6. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY STATED THAT MATTER COULD BE LOOKED AGAIN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSES SEE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE. ITA NOS.3212 & 3213/MDS/16. :- 4 -: 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE THAT LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAD FILED BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) A LETTER SEEKING TIME UPTO THI RD WEEK OF OCTOBER, 2016. HOWEVER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CHOSE TO GO BY THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29.08.2016. WE FIND THAT LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD APPEARED BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) ON 29.08.2016, WHEN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS WERE FILED. IT WAS MENTIONED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT DATE OF SUBSEQUENT HEARING WAS FIXED ON 19.09.2016 WITH THE CONSENT OF LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. BE THAT AS IT MAY , ONCE THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE FILED A LETTE R ON 19.09.2016 SEEKING TIME UPTO THIRD WEEK OF OCTOBER, 2016, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SHOUL D HAVE FAIRLY GIVEN TIME. I AM THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPEALS HAVING BEEN DECIDED EX-PARTE REQUIRE A FRESH LOOK BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR BOTH YEARS. I SET ASIDE TH E ORDER OF THE LOWER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR BOTH THE YEARS AND REMIT THE APPEALS BACK TO HIS FILE FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ONE MOR E OPPORTUNITY TO THE ITA NOS.3212 & 3213/MDS/16. :- 5 -: ASSESSEE FOR REPRESENTING HIS CASE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BO TH THE YEARS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JAN UARY, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) $ %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &'! / CHENNAI ( / DATED:11TH JANUARY, 2017. KV ) '+, -,' / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT 3. .' () / CIT(A) 5. ,12 '3 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. .' / CIT 6. 24 5! / GF