G N V MOHAN RAJU, TRICHY V. ITO, WARD-3(3), TRICHY

ITA 3493/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7682 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HOMI RAJVANSH
• Assessee Lawyers: MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM ITP
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.3493/CHNY/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012) SHRI G.N.V. MOHAN RAJU, NO.2, IYER THOTTAM, K.K. NAGAR, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, TIRUCHIRAPALLI PAN: AALPM6719P ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, ITP / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HOMI RAJ VANSH, CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 09.04.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.04.2019 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-1, TRICHY, DATED 10.10.2018 IN ITA NO.170/2016-17/CIT(A)-1/TRY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 PASSED U/S. 250(6) R.W.S. 143(3) & 147 OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL:- 2 ITA NO.3493/CHNY/2018 THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS-L) TRICHY DATED 10/10/2018 IS OBJECTED TO ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN COMMUTING BETWEEN CHENNAI AND TRICHY FOR PROFESSIONAL REASONS, FAMILY REASONS AND MEDICAL REASONS AND HENCE THERE HAD BEEN DIFFICULTY IN GETTING INFORMATION ABOUT THE DATES OF POSTING OF THE APPEALS BY THE COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) TRICHY 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS REPRESENTATIVE GOT INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEARING NOTICES ONLY ON THREE OCCASIONS AND ON ALL THE THREE OCCASIONS ADJOURNMENTS WERE TAKEN FOR VALID REASONS ON HEALTH PROBLEMS AND THE ADJOURNMENTS WERE ALSO GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER(APPEALS). 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE THE HEARING NOTICES DATED 31/5/2018 AND 8/8/2018 AND THE AUDITOR WAS BUSY WITH THE STATUTORY AUDIT CASES FOR THE HEARING ON 27/9/2018. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ALL THE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND HE COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) FOR REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL WHICH INCLUDED THE HEALTH PROBLEMS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PROFESSIONAL COMPULSIONS OF THE AUDITOR 5. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE CASE FOR ONE MORE HEARING DURING WHICH PERIOD THE ASSESSEE AND HIS AUDITOR WOULD ATTEND THE HEARING WITHOUT FAIL AND WOULD COOPERATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE APPEAL. 6. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND OR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS THE HEARING PROGRESSES IN CASE A NEED ARISES 1JF THE SAME. 7. THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SUBMITS THAT THE TRIBUNAL FOR A FRESH HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 3. AT THE OUTSET THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE COUNSEL OF 3 ITA NO.3493/CHNY/2018 THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON THE DATE OF HEARING 08.10.2018, THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INDISPOSED DUE TO MULTIPLE HEALTH PROBLEM. HOWEVER THE LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT GRANTING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD PASSED AN EX- PARTE ORDER. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. THE LD.DR ON THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR AND ARGUED STATING THAT IN SPITE OF MANY OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, ADJOURNMENTS WERE SOUGHT FOR, THEREFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WAS COMPELLED TO PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERIT BASED ON THE MATERIALS PLACED BEFORE HIM. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), IT IS APPARENT THAT HE HAD GRANTED SEVERAL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD I.E., ON 30.01.2018, 27.02.2018, 20.06.2018, 16.08.2018 AND 08.10.2018. ON ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED DATES FIXED FOR HEARING, IT APPEARS THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS COUNSEL HAS CO-OPERATED 4 ITA NO.3493/CHNY/2018 IN THE PROCEEDINGS. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD.AR. HOWEVER IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR DE-NOVA CONSIDERATION THEREBY PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE WITH ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND ALSO HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS COUNSEL TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE LD.CIT(A) IN HIS PROCEEDINGS PROMPTLY, FAILING WHICH THE LD.CIT(A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH MERIT AND LAW BASED ON THE MATERIALS BEFORE HIM. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 09 TH APRIL, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- /CHENNAI, /DATED 09 TH APRIL, 2019 RSR /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( ) /CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. /GF ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER